Driving Under the Influence of Drugs – State v. Tamburro

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs – State v. Tamburro

Getting behind the wheel while high is so not cool. But can the cops actually prove you’re impaired? That question got litigated in State v. Tamburro, a major case in Rhode Island. Let’s break it down.

So this dude, Tamburro, got pulled over after some shoddy driving. When the cop came up to his window, she saw his eyes were bloodshot and glazed over. Tamburro’s speech was slurred and he was moving slowly.

The cop asked Tamburro to take some field sobriety tests, which he failed big time. He couldn’t walk a straight line or stand on one leg or even follow basic instructions. So the cop arrested Tamburro for DUI and took him to the station.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Turns out, Tamburro didn’t have a lick of alcohol in his system. But his blood test came back positive for benzos – specifically, Xanax.

Tamburro’s lawyer tried to get the DUI charge thrown out. He argued there was no proof Tamburro was actually impaired by the Xanax. Maybe he just naturally sucks at field sobriety tests?

But the prosecution came back swinging. They cited Tamburro’s reckless driving, his doped out appearance, his failed sobriety tests, and the Xanax in his system. The druggy trifecta, they argued.

The judge sided with the prosecution. Tamburro was convicted of DUI-drugs. That kicked off his appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court in State v. Tamburro.

The Tamburro Decision

The Rhody Supreme Court took a long hard look at what the state needs to prove in a DUI-drugs case. Their conclusion? The state doesn’t need definitive proof of impairment.

As long as the prosecution can show symptoms consistent with drug intoxication plus evidence of a drug in the defendant’s system, they can get a DUI conviction. Scientific certainty not required.

This opened the floodgates for DUI-drug prosecutions in Rhode Island. Now cops and prosecutors don’t need expert testimony or field sobriety benchmarks for specific drugs. The court gave them a lot more leeway.

The Pros

The Tamburro standard makes it easier to convict drugged drivers. That’s a public safety win, right?

No doubt driving while impaired by any substance is wicked dangerous. Tamburro gives cops and prosecutors more tools to get impaired drivers off the roads.

Plenty of drugged drivers get off because the state can’t prove the driver’s specific level of impairment. Tamburro closes that loophole.

With the opioid epidemic, weed legalization, and the prevalence of prescription meds, DUI-drugs are on the rise. Tamburro helps hold drugged drivers accountable.

The Cons

Defense lawyers hate Tamburro. They say it tramples due process and the presumption of innocence.

The defense bar argues there’s a huge difference between alcohol impairment and drug impairment. With alcohol, you can do blood-alcohol tests and correlate the results with behavioral signs.

But each drug is different. Just because someone took Xanax or smoked a joint doesn’t mean they’re necessarily impaired.

Tamburro basically allows DUI convictions based on drug presence alone, without proof of impairment. But presence doesn’t equal impairment.

Defense lawyers also worry about false positives. Field drug tests are notoriously unreliable. Just because a cheap roadside test says you’re positive for some drug doesn’t mean you actually are.

How Other States Are Handling DUI-Drugs

Tamburro is limited to Rhode Island. Other states take different approaches to DUI-drugs.

In California, prosecutors have to present expert testimony linking the driver’s drug use to impairment. Presence of a drug alone doesn’t cut it. Check out People v. Torres for more details.

New York has a “driving while ability impaired” statute that sets a lower bar for drug DUIs. The state only needs to show that the driver’s ability was impaired “to any extent” by a drug.

Some states have created “per se” laws for marijuana DUIs. In Colorado, for example, drivers with more than 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood can be convicted of DUI without any further proof of impairment.

Defenses in Drug DUI Cases

Even under Tamburro, the defense still has cards to play in a drug DUI case. Some options:

• Challenge the validity of the blood or urine test results. Lab errors happen more often than you’d think.
• Dispute signs of impairment as naturally occurring – for example, a chronic back condition instead of drug intoxication.
• Argue for “innocent ingestion” of the drugs, such as taking legally prescribed medication as directed.
• Claim the driver developed a tolerance to the drug’s effects from regular usage. Experienced pot smokers, for example.
• Attack the reliability of field sobriety and drug recognition tests. Their accuracy varies wildly.
• Present evidence of no erratic or unsafe driving to contradict the impairment accusations.

The Takeaway

Tamburro gave a big assist to prosecutors taking drugged drivers off the road. But the impaired driving statutes are still a patchwork across the U.S.

One thing’s for sure – with shifting marijuana laws and the prevalence of prescription meds, we’ll see a ton more drug DUI cases. And the courts will keep on struggling to balance public safety and due process.

Stay safe out there. Don’t drive under the influence of anything, whether it’s booze, pot, pills, or any other substance that could impair your driving. Just don’t do it. Take an Uber or have a friend drive instead. Car crashes suck. DUIs suck. Don’t become a statistic. Be smart.