Friday, May 16, 2008
The General Assembly is now in session.
Tracking Virginia’s General Assembly
since 2007.
HB224: Driving while intoxicated; elimination of requirement that intoxicant be self-administered.
Chief Patron
Del.
John Cosgrove (R-78)
John Cosgrove
(R-78)
Chesapeake, VA
Served: 2002–
Progress
 |
Introduced |
 |
Passed Committee |
|
Passed House |
 |
Passed Senate |
|
Signed by Governor |
|
Became Law |
Status
03/03/2008: Failed to Pass in Committee
Summary
Driving while intoxicated; elimination of requirement that intoxicant be self-administered. Eliminates the requirement that a person be under the influence of a self-administered intoxicant or drug in order to be convicted of driving while intoxicated. Instead, a person may be convicted if he operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other intoxicant or drug.
View Full Text »Video
Votes were cast on this bill on the following dates for which Richmond Sunlight has video: 01/10/2008, 01/22/2008, 01/22/2008, 01/23/2008, 01/23/2008, 01/24/2008, 01/24/2008, 01/25/2008, 01/28/2008, 02/04/2008, 02/04/2008, 02/12/2008, 02/21/2008, 02/22/2008, 02/22/2008 and 02/25/2008.
Photosynthesis
This bill is being tracked by Waldo J., robert l., Timothy W., Michael B., Watch, Buddy B. and Aimee.
Cast Your Vote
Do you support this bill in its current form?
Tags
Bill Text
Related Bills
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Status: signed by governor
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Status: Failed to Pass in Committee
Subscribe
Keep track of the status of this bill as it moves through the General Assembly
— subscribe
via RSS.
Comments
So, I guess if someone is given GHB (or any other drug) against their will they should be charged with DUI?
MORON!
This is a great example of a bill that makes absolutely no sense when divorced from its context. That's being charitable -- I have no idea of what the context is in which this bill is logical. I can only hope that Del. Cosgrove has a compelling tale to tell about why this is necessary, because I can't envision those circumstances.
They simply took "self administered" out of the current bill 4 times. Apparently it is a big problem that some smart aleck lawyer argued that his dui client had someone pour the Jack Daniels down his throat and so technically he should not be charged under the statute. Or are they just worried that someone might figure this out. When is someone going to put a cap on bills that a legislator can introduce. The avg. is now about 20-22. How about 18?
This legislation is no doubt in response to a November 2007 opinion (Jackson v. Commonwealth) in which the Virginia Supreme Court overturned a DUI conviction of a man who left the emergency room and crashed his car into a telephone pole while driving under the influence of physician-administered pain killers.
Cook- thanks for that. But I don't understand why the law needed to be changed. Seems like the courts eventually recognized that the law did indeed say "self administered". Does the GA now wish that drivers under the influence of a physician-administered pain killer be treated the same as someone who downed a quart of liquor?
The amended text of this bill makes a lot more sense.
Post a Public Comment About this Bill