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

Introduced By

Sen. John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


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 »


Bill Has Failed


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


Timothy Watson writes:

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


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?

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.

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?

Waldo Jaquith writes:

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