Driving while intoxicated; elimination of requirement that intoxicant be self-administered. (HB224)
Introduced By
Sen. John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
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. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 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
So, I guess if someone is given GHB (or any other drug) against their will they should be charged with DUI?
MORON!
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.