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

[Borgholio]

This isn't actually as crazy as it sounds at first. There is actually a rare syndrome called auto-brewery syndrome where yeast in the intestines will turn carbs into alcohol. Naturally the state of New York isn't happy about this defense but it's a documented medical condition so not much they can do.


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/new-york-woman ... ge-1535489

Policemen on patrol probably get to hear some pretty bizarre excuses from drivers failing their breathalyser tests. In one such case, a woman, who had more than four times the state legal alcohol limit, went on to prove she was not driving under the influence of alcohol, at least not intentionally.

Hamburg police arrested a motorist in 2014 after the breathalyser recorded a reading of .33% when the legal threshold for drunkenness in New York is 0.08%.
Why advertise with us

The unnamed New York woman then went to great lengths to prove that she had not consumed alcohol but that her body had produced it on its own. She spent over $7,000 (£4,720) working with a specialist to prove that she did in fact suffer from auto brewery syndrome, a rare disorder that causes excess intestinal yeast to turn ordinary food into alcohol.

Hamburg town judge Walter Rooth recently found the woman's claim compelling and dismissed the case. The Erie County District Attorney's office, however, said it would appeal the ruling and seek to have the charges against the driver reinstated.

"I would say it is not safe to drive a car if you are in an auto brewery syndrome flare," Dr Anup Kanodia of Ohio, an expert on the unusual syndrome who monitored and tested the woman said. "But it's a brand new disease and we're still trying to understand it."

"At first glance, it seems like a get-out-of-jail-free card," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. "But it's not that easy. Courts tend to be sceptical of such claims. You have to be able to document the syndrome through recognised testing."

The woman's lawyer, Joseph Marusak, had contacted Turley for help with the case and was then referred to Dr Kanodia who conducted a variety of tests on her.

"At the end of the day, she had a blood-alcohol content of 0.36% without drinking any alcoholic beverages," he said about one of the tests administered. He said she had also bought a breath test kit and blew into it every night for 18 days, registering around 0.20% every time.

When the woman had been pulled over by the police for weaving in October 2014, her car had a flat tyre and reports mention that she also had "blood-shot, glassy eyes".

"Her tire was flat, and she felt she was close enough to home that she could drive the rest of the way," Marusak explained. "She can register a blood alcohol content that would have you or I falling down drunk, but she can function."

[Purple]

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.

[Borgholio]

I think the conditions should definitely matter. This is a medical condition, no different than other conditions that can cause problems operating a motor vehicle such as epilepsy. I did a bit of reading on it and it seems that it can be treated by medication that kills the yeast in the intestine. So I think it would be fair to let her continue driving so long as she takes medication to prevent any alcohol flare-ups, similar to how epileptic drivers can drive so long as they take pills to prevent seizures.

Now if, despite now having been officially diagnosed, she continues to drive while drunk and makes no attempt to control her condition, then I'd say she should face punishment for it.

[Purple]

Basically the way I see it she pulled a "I can't help it, I am sick." card. And I think the correct response by the court should have been "That's your problem, not ours. Now pay up." Medical conditions should not excuse one from the law. And even if we give her every benefit of the doubt and say she did not know about the condition before driving, so what? That again is not the states problem, it's hers. She has a responsibility to know the condition of her body.

[Borgholio]

I think the correct response should be the one that the court uses whenever everybody has a correctable medical condition : "Correct it or lose your license." If she doesn't bother trying to fix it, then I agree she should have to pay up and / or lose her license.

[Zaune]

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.

And if her condition flared up while she was at the wheel, rather than beforehand? We wouldn't prosecute someone with diabetes if they passed out from hyperglyceamia and lost control of their car.

[Sir Sirius]

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.

And if her condition flared up while she was at the wheel, rather than beforehand? We wouldn't prosecute someone with diabetes if they passed out from hyperglyceamia and lost control of their car.

She tested at ~0,2 % every time for 18 days straight when she tested herself. Looks like she's perpetually shitfaced, rather then this being something that flares up only on occasion. She has a medical condition that prevents her from safely operating motor vehicles, she just should drive.

[Elheru Aran]

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.

And if her condition flared up while she was at the wheel, rather than beforehand? We wouldn't prosecute someone with diabetes if they passed out from hyperglyceamia and lost control of their car.

She tested at ~0,2 % every time for 18 days straight when she tested herself. Looks like she's perpetually shitfaced, rather then this being something that flares up only on occasion. She has a medical condition that prevents her from safely operating motor vehicles, she just should drive.

I think you mean "she just should *not* drive"...

I would say that allowing yourself to get in a hypoglycemic state is similar to allowing yourself to drive drunk, though obviously they're not directly comparable. However both are preventable-- one by maintaining your glucose and insulin levels in equilibrium, the other by not drinking. Both are controllable, with the caveat that hypoglycemia is undesirable, drunkenness is (to a hopefully responsible degree). So I would certainly issue a moderate punishment-- for damage to property if nothing else-- to someone who passes out due to hypoglycemia, something like a minor fine, because that's a preventable accident.

Now if you could demonstrate that the hypoglycemia was unpreventable-- for example, perhaps the driver ran out of insulin supplies on hand-- then perhaps that's different, but still, in this period of modern communication, the responsible thing to do would be to acknowledge one's own condition and take measures to prevent hurting oneself or others, such as pulling over and calling a relative or friend for help.

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?

[Borgholio]

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.

[Purple]

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.

And if her condition flared up while she was at the wheel, rather than beforehand? We wouldn't prosecute someone with diabetes if they passed out from hyperglyceamia and lost control of their car.

As long as the person can predict it I would. A diabetic can in fact monitor blood sugar levels at home and decide not to drive on a bad day. Does this present a massive inconvenience? Sure. But that's his problem and not the courts.

Elheru Aran explained it quite well.

[Elheru Aran]

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.

And if her condition flared up while she was at the wheel, rather than beforehand? We wouldn't prosecute someone with diabetes if they passed out from hyperglyceamia and lost control of their car.

As long as the person can predict it I would. A diabetic can in fact monitor blood sugar levels at home and decide not to drive on a bad day. Does this present a massive inconvenience? Sure. But that's his problem and not the courts.

Elheru Aran explained it quite well.

With the caveat that physical conditions should be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing if such cases come to court.

If someone has a life-long condition where they naturally produce alcohol in their bodies, then it can be assumed that they have a higher functionality at certain blood alcohol levels than a regular person, as Borgholio stated immediately after my post. A special note should be made regarding these people in the legal system, and some sort of marker on their driver's license would help this (same as any license that notes whether a person wears glasses to drive or is hearing impaired, whatever), that they should not be considered 'drunk' unless they blow over something like... one and a half times, twice the usual level, something like that.

Of course extenuating circumstances can apply as well-- being tired is as disabling to one's driving ability as being drunk, for example. As I mentioned, a diabetic could become separated from their insulin supply, a hearing-impaired person's hearing aid could lose battery power, whatever.

And with the understanding that some people never diagnose such issues until they become a medical emergency or come to attention otherwise (such as in the case of this woman, being pulled over when she hadn't drunk anything), first-time cases should be allowed a measure of mitigation, perhaps paroled rather than sentenced with the proviso they seek appropriate prophylaxis for their condition. A second offense could receive the full sentence.

[Gaidin]

As long as the person can predict it I would. A diabetic can in fact monitor blood sugar levels at home and decide not to drive on a bad day. Does this present a massive inconvenience? Sure. But that's his problem and not the courts.

Elheru Aran explained it quite well.

Well hell, even the doctor in the article said she probably shouldn't drive in a flare. But the question is if they're predictable. And as noted it's a newer condition. I'm wary of the earlier comparisons to epilepsy given how nice(/sarcasm) seizures are at letting you know they're coming. Also, state law tends to just knock you off the road until you're seizure free for a few months anyway if you feel like paying attention to that anyway in most places.

[Elheru Aran]

Well hell, even the doctor in the article said she probably shouldn't drive in a flare. But the question is if they're predictable. And as noted it's a newer condition. I'm wary of the earlier comparisons to epilepsy given how nice(/sarcasm) seizures are at letting you know they're coming. Also, state law tends to just knock you off the road until you're seizure free for a few months anyway if you feel like paying attention to that anyway in most places.

Epilepsy is definitely a somewhat different situation. If what I interpret is correct, the woman could go on a largely gluten- and dairy-free diet (wheat products and dairy are the primary sources of yeast IIRC but I could certainly be wrong) and stop most of the alcohol production in her body; otherwise, there's some basic medication she could use. It's simply an aberrant function of her digestive system crossed with whatever she's eating. Epilepsy is much less controllable or predictable than that, although IIRC vaguely there's some success with medicating it (for some people).

That said, I don't have much sympathy for someone with epilepsy who decides to make a trip without appropriate precautions and causes an accident due to having a seizure behind the wheel. I would be more understanding of, say, a short trip down to the corner store, or a 10-minute commute to work, things like that, since those are short enough distances that the time you'll actually be moving in the car is pretty short. So it's a situational thing.

[Purple]

With the caveat that physical conditions should be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing if such cases come to court.
...

I disagree with this on principal for two reasons.
1. We can't be sure it is in fact going to be that way and the person won't just be semi comatose drunk (or the equivalent for different conditions) all the time.
2. If we added exceptions for every little thing law would be an even worse mess of spaghetti code than it is now. If anything we need to reduce the number of special cases and exceptions across the board.

Of course extenuating circumstances can apply as well-- being tired is as disabling to one's driving ability as being drunk, for example. As I mentioned, a diabetic could become separated from their insulin supply, a hearing-impaired person's hearing aid could lose battery power, whatever.

In that case they should do the same thing we healthy people do when we get into a situation of impaired ability (like say when we are too tired to drive) and pull over or not drive at all.

And with the understanding that some people never diagnose such issues until they become a medical emergency or come to attention otherwise (such as in the case of this woman, being pulled over when she hadn't drunk anything), first-time cases should be allowed a measure of mitigation, perhaps paroled rather than sentenced with the proviso they seek appropriate prophylaxis for their condition. A second offense could receive the full sentence.

This I can agree with but only with the caveat that we exclude cases where the condition was left undiagnosed due to willful negligence on part of the person. As in a person who newer visits the doctor and generally does not take care of them self should not be excused. A person that does everything right but somehow still manages to not get it diagnosed should. Basically I draw the line at that point where there is no reasonable blame to be placed on the person for neglecting to perform actions that would have lead to the detection.

[Captain Seafort]

With the caveat that physical conditions should be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing if such cases come to court.

Under what circumstances? If the individual in question is unaware of their condition at the time of the offence, fair enough. If they know they suffer from a medical condition that may render them unfit to drive then it should be considered an aggravating factor.

[Gaidin]

That said, I don't have much sympathy for someone with epilepsy who decides to make a trip without appropriate precautions and causes an accident due to having a seizure behind the wheel. I would be more understanding of, say, a short trip down to the corner store, or a 10-minute commute to work, things like that, since those are short enough distances that the time you'll actually be moving in the car is pretty short. So it's a situational thing.

I have...slightly more. We're heading slightly into off topic land. But let's just say that it's pretty god damn easy to have a legit diagnosis based on available data that isn't correct or just not fully formed. It's a hilariously complex subject and discovering that one medication alone doesn't work can take years sometimes.

[Purple]

That said, I don't have much sympathy for someone with epilepsy who decides to make a trip without appropriate precautions and causes an accident due to having a seizure behind the wheel. I would be more understanding of, say, a short trip down to the corner store, or a 10-minute commute to work, things like that, since those are short enough distances that the time you'll actually be moving in the car is pretty short. So it's a situational thing.

I have...slightly more. We're heading slightly into off topic land. But let's just say that it's pretty god damn easy to have a legit diagnosis based on available data that isn't correct or just not fully formed. It's a hilariously complex subject and discovering that one medication alone doesn't work can take years sometimes.

Better not drive at all until you are certain than. Bottom line is that life ain't fair. And the state need not try and make it fair for you at the expense of others.

[Gaidin]

Better not drive at all until you are certain than. Bottom line is that life ain't fair. And the state need not try and make it fair for you at the expense of others.

Terms we can understand: single medication worked for three years plus some. I got lucky and had a blackout at my dorm room desk. Instead of in the car. We had me on a second medication so damn fast it could've been called an emergency appointment. But you want to call multiple years uncertain? I'll call you unreasonable.

[Purple]

Better not drive at all until you are certain than. Bottom line is that life ain't fair. And the state need not try and make it fair for you at the expense of others.

Terms we can understand: single medication worked for three years plus some. I got lucky and had a blackout at my dorm room desk. Instead of in the car. We had me on a second medication so damn fast it could've been called an emergency appointment. But you want to call multiple years uncertain? I'll call you unreasonable.

But imagine if it had been in a car. And if you had say ran over 1 person. Would it be unreasonable to say that you being forced to endure the inconvenience of walking for the rest of your life is not a worthy sacrifice to demand in exchange for that one life?

[Gaidin]

But imagine if it had been in a car. And if you had say ran over 1 person. Would it be unreasonable to say that you being forced to endure the inconvenience of walking for the rest of your life is not a worthy sacrifice to demand in exchange for that one life?

I don't deal with your crazy what-ifs. I deal with what happens. Maybe we'll answer that question one day. Hopefully we won't. This law you guys so harp on in this thread regarding BAL? Let's go back to this concept. State law in most states require seizure free record of 3-6 months depending on the state you live in. Mine? Well, that on top of a doctor's release. So really, your blessing I couldn't give two shits about. I've got the law on my side.

[Captain Seafort]

I don't deal with your crazy what-ifs. I deal with what happens. Maybe we'll answer that question one day. Hopefully we won't.

Indeed. I'd call the situation unfortunate, but ultimately a single individual's lack of mobility from not being allowed to drive is a vastly lesser evil than a couple of tons of uncontrolled metal moving at several tens of miles per hour. The fact that the probability of the latter event may be far less than the former doesn't, IMHO, sufficiently reduce the risk.

[Purple]

I don't deal with your crazy what-ifs. I deal with what happens

Than you are really out of place in this conversation. In case you have not noticed, and given the date and time I can forgive this the entire discussion has since basically the 1st post been on if the legislative approach presented in this case is good, bad and how we, the ones taking part in said conversation would modify it.

[Gaidin]

I don't deal with your crazy what-ifs. I deal with what happens

Than you are really out of place in this conversation. In case you have not noticed, and given the date and time I can forgive this the entire discussion has since basically the 1st post been on if the legislative approach presented in this case is good, bad and how we, the ones taking part in said conversation would modify it.

Nah. I was calling an out of place analogy in this thread the BS that it was. Functionally we can armchair doctor this woman's condition with a diet plan so that she can control it. Good for her. Meanwhile, the out of place analogy is pretty much one of the more hilariously unpredictable fields of neurology. You want to ask me why I find your bullshit insulting?

[Purple]

Nah. I was calling an out of place analogy in this thread the BS that it was. Functionally we can armchair doctor this woman's condition with a diet plan so that she can control it. Good for her. Meanwhile, the out of place analogy is pretty much one of the more hilariously unpredictable fields of neurology. You want to ask me why I find your bullshit insulting?

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.

[Gaidin]

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?