Driving while intoxicated; elimination of requirement that intoxicant be self-administered. (HB224)

Introduced By

Del. John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake)

Progress

√
 Introduced
X
 Passed Committee
√
 Passed House
☐
 Passed Senate
☐
 Signed by Governor
☐
 Became Law

Description

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. Amends § 18.2-266, § 46.2-304, § 46.2-341.24, § 46.2-411, of the Code of Virginia. View Full Text »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

  • 12/28/2007 Committee
  • 12/28/2007 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 084629472
  • 12/28/2007 Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
  • 01/02/2008 Impact statement from VCSC (HB224)
  • 01/10/2008 Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
  • 01/21/2008 Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
  • 01/22/2008 Committee substitute printed 080821472-H1
  • 01/22/2008 Impact statement from VCSC (HB224H1)
  • 01/23/2008 Read first time
  • 01/24/2008 Read second time
  • 01/24/2008 Committee substitute agreed to 080821472-H1
  • 01/24/2008 Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB224H1
  • 01/25/2008 Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (97-Y 0-N)
  • 01/25/2008 VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (97-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
  • 01/25/2008 Communicated to Senate
  • 01/28/2008 Constitutional reading dispensed
  • 01/28/2008 Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
  • 02/04/2008 Impact statement from DPB (HB224H1)
  • 02/12/2008 Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
  • 02/20/2008 Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (8-Y 6-N 1-A)
  • 02/21/2008 Committee substitute printed 081560472-S1
  • 02/21/2008 Impact statement from VCSC (HB224S1)
  • 02/22/2008 Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
  • 02/25/2008 Read third time
  • 02/25/2008 Reading of substitute waived
  • 02/25/2008 Committee substitute agreed to 081560472-S1
  • 02/25/2008 Motion to recommit to committee agreed to
  • 02/25/2008 Recommitted to Courts of Justice
  • 03/03/2008 Left in Courts of Justice (15-Y 0-N)

Comments

Timothy Watson writes:

So, I guess if someone is given GHB (or any other drug) against their will they should be charged with DUI?

MORON!

Posted 66 months ago.
robert legge writes:

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?

Posted 65 months ago.
cook writes:

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.

Posted 65 months ago.
robert legge writes:

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?

Posted 65 months ago.
Waldo Jaquith writes:

The amended text of this bill makes a lot more sense.

Posted 65 months ago.