Driving Under the Influence of Narcotic: State v. DiCarlo

Driving Under the Influence of Narcotics: State v. DiCarlo

When can you get a DUI for driving under the influence of prescription meds? Well, it’s complicated. Laws vary a lot state-by-state. But a recent case in New Jersey clarified things there. Let’s break it down.

So this guy, Joseph DiCarlo, got charged with DUI after an accident. But here’s the thing — he wasn’t drunk. Turns out he took some prescription pain meds earlier that day. So did that make him legally impaired to drive?

The case went all the way up to the NJ Supreme Court. They had to decide: Is it enough to just show the driver took narcotics, or do you need to prove actual impairment?

In State v. DiCarlo, the court came down firmly on the side of requiring proof of real impairment. Let’s get into the details.

The Accident

One morning in 2014, DiCarlo drove his pickup truck into the rear of a minivan stopped at a red light. Minor fender bender, no injuries.

But when the cops showed up, they thought DiCarlo seemed drowsy and uncoordinated. He admitted taking some prescription meds earlier — a painkiller called Percocet and a muscle relaxer called Flexeril.

So they arrested him for DUI and took him to the hospital for a blood test. Later, the lab results showed traces of the meds in his system.

The DUI Charge

Now, here’s the statute DiCarlo got charged under:

“A person who operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of…narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug, or…a narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drug violates this section if the person is substantially incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle.”

So the cops said DiCarlo was impaired based on how he seemed at the scene, plus the meds in his system. Pretty open-and-shut DUI case, right?

Not so fast. DiCarlo fought the charges.

His argument: Yes he took those prescription meds. But the state couldn’t prove they actually impaired his driving and made him “substantially incapable” of driving safely.

The Trial

At trial, a toxicology expert testified for the state. He said the levels of meds in DiCarlo’s blood showed he took them recently before driving. And he said those meds can cause drowsiness and dizziness.

But — crucially — the expert admitted he couldn’t say whether DiCarlo himself was actually impaired. He didn’t examine DiCarlo or the accident scene. He only reviewed the blood test results.

DiCarlo’s lawyer argued there was no evidence he was really impaired. Nobody saw him driving erratically before the accident. And the accident itself was extremely minor — just a fender bender at low speed.

The trial judge sided with the state. DiCarlo got convicted of DUI.

But he appealed. And the case eventually reached the NJ Supreme Court. This was a big deal. The court was going to interpret what the DUI law really requires.

NJ Supreme Court Decision

In a 6-1 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed DiCarlo’s conviction. They said the state failed to prove actual impairment.

The fact that DiCarlo took medications capable of causing impairment isn’t enough, the court said. The state needs to show those meds actually impaired his driving ability when the accident happened.

But the state’s evidence didn’t directly show that. The expert simply assumed impairment based on the meds showing up in DiCarlo’s blood tests. He never examined DiCarlo or the accident circumstances.

“The mere presence of a substance in the defendant’s body does not establish impairment,” the court said. Going forward, the state has to directly prove the driver’s ability to drive safely was actually diminished.

The Dissent

One judge dissented. He argued that simply having narcotics in your system should be enough to prove DUI. In his view, the statute prohibits any amount of drugs that could potentially impair driving.

He said it’s too hard for the state to prove actual impairment in every case. The dissenting judge argued the majority’s standard will make many DUI cases impossible to prove.

What This Means

This case sets an important precedent in New Jersey. Now the state has to do more than show traces of medication in your system to convict for DUI-narcotics.

Prosecutors have to present evidence that those meds actually impaired your driving ability in a specific case. Expect more expert testimony directly linking drug effects to driving impairment.

The dissenting opinion shows how reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Some see the majority’s standard as too hard to meet. But the court wanted to ensure people don’t get convicted without solid proof of real impairment.

Other States

The laws vary across the country on this issue. Some states specifically prohibit driving after taking certain meds. Others focus on whether the driver seems impaired. Most are somewhere in between.

For example, in Texas the state has to prove the driver didn’t have “normal use of mental or physical faculties” due to medication side effects. That’s a less strict standard than New Jersey’s “substantial impairment.”

Meanwhile, zero tolerance laws in some states automatically make it illegal to drive with any amount of certain drugs in your system. That avoids arguments over impairment completely.

The Bottom Line

DUI laws are always evolving. DiCarlo gives us the latest guidance in New Jersey. But laws differ elsewhere. So if you ever get charged after taking medications, be sure to talk to a local DUI attorney.

The core question is always the same: Did a drug really impair your driving ability in that instance? But states answer that question differently. An experienced lawyer can argue your side using the specific laws where you’re charged.

So stay safe out there. Be aware of how prescriptions affect you, especially new ones. And if in doubt, don’t drive. A DUI charge is never worth the risk.