Ed Oliver Arrested DWI

[Mango]

7 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Driver side door, no?

 

Yeah sorry. I messed that up. Disregard. 

[Sig1Hunter]

6 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

It would seem odd to charge someone diagnosed with ADHD with impaired ability for taking prescribed meds that are supposed to improve attention. Now if a blood test comes back and shows they took way more than prescribed then it would make sense. 

The body adjusts to the medicine, so when there is no or low tolerance, the body can be impaired by therapeutic doses. This is why usually there are warnings like “don’t operate a vehicle until you know how the medicine will effect you”. As he continues to take it, the body builds a tolerance and that therapeutic dose won’t cause impairment. The issue isn’t the presence of a drug in the blood. The State needs to link that presence to evidence of physical impairment. That’s the issue. And, it’s a tough hill to climb from the States perspective.  There aren’t any “per se” laws for drugs, yet, like there are for alcohol (that I know of). 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Sig1Hunter said:

The body adjusts to the medicine, so when there is no or low tolerance, the body can be impaired by therapeutic doses. This is why usually there are warnings like “don’t operate a vehicle until you know how the medicine will effect you”. As he continues to take it, the body builds a tolerance and that therapeutic dose won’t cause impairment. The issue isn’t the presence of a drug in the blood. The State needs to link that presence to evidence of physical impairment. That’s the issue. And, it’s a tough hill to climb from the States perspective.  There aren’t any “per se” laws for drugs, yet, like there are for alcohol (that I know of). 

 

I found this, as an example:

 

Michigan law prohibits driving with any amount of a controlled substance in your system, including may prescription medications. You should check the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) full list of scheduled substances for a complete list. 

 

amphetamines (adderall is on the list).  It seems to hold true even if the driver isn't obviously/visibly impaired?

[JohnC]

38 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I found this, as an example:

 

Michigan law prohibits driving with any amount of a controlled substance in your system, including may prescription medications. You should check the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) full list of scheduled substances for a complete list. 

 

amphetamines (adderall is on the list).  It seems to hold true even if the driver isn't obviously/visibly impaired?

From the googling that I did unless the law specifically prohibits driving with any amount of a controlled substance in your system (including prescriptions) like it does in the Michigan law that you cited the critical issue relates to impairment (as indicated by Sig1Hunter's response). And as he noted it is not easy for the state to link. Sig1Hunter has the best grasp of the law and underlying reasoning on this drug issue. I would trust his judgment on this issue. 

[Sig1Hunter]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I found this, as an example:

 

Michigan law prohibits driving with any amount of a controlled substance in your system, including may prescription medications. You should check the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) full list of scheduled substances for a complete list. 

 

amphetamines (adderall is on the list).  It seems to hold true even if the driver isn't obviously/visibly impaired?

When I looked up the state of Michigan’s DUI law, it seems that what you are referencing applies to schedule I controlled substances. I.e. those controlled substances without legitimate medical purpose and a high abuse potential. I don’t believe Adderall is a schedule 1 drug. Admittedly, I’m ignorant on Michigan law. But, that’s what I found when going straight to the government site. 
 

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_8665_9070-24488--,00.html

[Mr. WEO]

11 hours ago, JohnC said:

From the googling that I did unless the law specifically prohibits driving with any amount of a controlled substance in your system (including prescriptions) like it does in the Michigan law that you cited the critical issue relates to impairment (as indicated by Sig1Hunter's response). And as he noted it is not easy for the state to link. Sig1Hunter has the best grasp of the law and underlying reasoning on this drug issue. I would trust his judgment on this issue. 

 

11 hours ago, Sig1Hunter said:

When I looked up the state of Michigan’s DUI law, it seems that what you are referencing applies to schedule I controlled substances. I.e. those controlled substances without legitimate medical purpose and a high abuse potential. I don’t believe Adderall is a schedule 1 drug. Admittedly, I’m ignorant on Michigan law. But, that’s what I found when going straight to the government site. 
 

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_8665_9070-24488--,00.html

 

 

Michigan classifies adderall as a Schedule II controlled substance.

 

257.625   Michigan Vehicle Code:

 

 

  (1) A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state if the person is operating while intoxicated. As used in this section, "operating while intoxicated" means any of the following:

  (a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance.

 

Looks like it's pretty strict, and not limited to Schedule I and does not require visible impairment.

 

Tons of Michigan law firms online that advertise defense for people charged DWI for non Schedule I.... adderall for instance--even with a prescription.

 

[Sig1Hunter]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

Michigan classifies adderall as a Schedule II controlled substance.

 

257.625   Michigan Vehicle Code:

 

 

  (1) A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state if the person is operating while intoxicated. As used in this section, "operating while intoxicated" means any of the following:

  (a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance.

 

Looks like it's pretty strict, and not limited to Schedule I and does not require visible impairment.

 

Tons of Michigan law firms online that advertise defense for people charged DWI for non Schedule I.... adderall for instance--even with a prescription.

 

I think you are misreading that. It goes back to what I initially said. The Michigan statute says (not sure why we are debating Michigan law, btw) “under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance..”. Under the influence means impaired. Under the influence doesn’t mean just the presence of it in the breath/blood/urine. If that’s how you interpret that law, then the presence of any alcohol in your breath/blood/urine would make you guilty (since the first part says under the influence of alcoholic liquor). An element of under the influence is proving impairment.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Sig1Hunter

[Mr. WEO]

25 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

I think you are misreading that. It goes back to what I initially said. The Michigan statute says (not sure why we are debating Michigan law, btw) “under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance..”. Under the influence means impaired. Under the influence doesn’t mean just the presence of it in the breath/blood/urine. If that’s how you interpret that law, then the presence of any alcohol in your breath/blood/urine would make you guilty (since the first part says under the influence of alcoholic liquor). An element of under the influence is proving impairment.

 

I just picked a state where even a prescribed controlled substance is not legal while driving.  I may be wrong about the visibly impaired part (although Ed was, per the officer, visibly impaired, having failed the FST).

 

There is a booming legal business of defending people busted for this in Michigan.

 

 

This was from the first one that popped up:

 

Michigan law prohibits driving with any amount of a controlled substance in your system, including may prescription medications. You should check the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) full list of scheduled substances for a complete list. Here are some of the more common controlled substances with medical uses that we see in connection to Michigan impaired driving cases:

 

ADHD medication- These medications include amphetamine (which makes up Adderall) and methylphenidate (Concerta).

 

[Sig1Hunter]

8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I just picked a state where even a prescribed controlled substance is not legal while driving.  I may be wrong about the visibly impaired part (although Ed was, per the officer, visibly impaired, having failed the FST).

 

There is a booming legal business of defending people busted for this in Michigan.

 

 

This was from the first one that popped up:

 

Michigan law prohibits driving with any amount of a controlled substance in your system, including may prescription medications. You should check the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) full list of scheduled substances for a complete list. Here are some of the more common controlled substances with medical uses that we see in connection to Michigan impaired driving cases:

 

ADHD medication- These medications include amphetamine (which makes up Adderall) and methylphenidate (Concerta).

 

Yeah, but driving under the influence of any controlled substance is illegal in all 50 states I’m pretty sure. 
 

Getting high and driving is also a booming business, unfortunately.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I just picked a state where even a prescribed controlled substance is not legal while driving.  I may be wrong about the visibly impaired part (although Ed was, per the officer, visibly impaired, having failed the FST).

 

There is a booming legal business of defending people busted for this in Michigan.

 

 

This was from the first one that popped up:

 

Michigan law prohibits driving with any amount of a controlled substance in your system, including may prescription medications. You should check the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) full list of scheduled substances for a complete list. Here are some of the more common controlled substances with medical uses that we see in connection to Michigan impaired driving cases:

 

ADHD medication- These medications include amphetamine (which makes up Adderall) and methylphenidate (Concerta).

 

 

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

 

Michigan classifies adderall as a Schedule II controlled substance.

 

257.625   Michigan Vehicle Code:

 

 

  (1) A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state if the person is operating while intoxicated. As used in this section, "operating while intoxicated" means any of the following:

  (a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance or a combination of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance.

 

Looks like it's pretty strict, and not limited to Schedule I and does not require visible impairment.

 

Tons of Michigan law firms online that advertise defense for people charged DWI for non Schedule I.... adderall for instance--even with a prescription.

 

I still recommend going along with Sig1Hunter's interpretation of the law. As he noted the critical issue comes down to "impairment".

[Doc]

9 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I still recommend going along with Sig1Hunter's interpretation of the law. As he noted the critical issue comes down to "impairment".

 

Yup.  Without an over-the-limit BAC, it's going to be hard for them to prove that the Adderall, which he's been taking for awhile now, impaired him. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

 

I still recommend going along with Sig1Hunter's interpretation of the law. As he noted the critical issue comes down to "impairment".

 

He was judged impaired at the scene....

 

55 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yup.  Without an over-the-limit BAC, it's going to be hard for them to prove that the Adderall, which he's been taking for awhile now, impaired him. 

 

If the law is similar in Texas as it is in the example of Michigan, it won't matter which impaired him, or his BAL.    They wouldn't have to prove which if the laws are similar.  Isn't that why they charge him with "another substance"?

[Bangarang]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Yup.  Without an over-the-limit BAC, it's going to be hard for them to prove that the Adderall, which he's been taking for awhile now, impaired him. 

It wouldn’t be hard to prove at all given his reckless driving and apparent failed sobriety testing.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bangarang

[Doc]

33 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

If the law is similar in Texas as it is in the example of Michigan, it won't matter which impaired him, or his BAL.    They wouldn't have to prove which if the laws are similar.  Isn't that why they charge him with "another substance"?

 

4 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

It wouldn’t be hard to prove at all given his reckless driving and apparent failed sobriety testing.

 

So without a .08+ BAC, you think a jury would convict EO? 

[Bangarang]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

So without a .08+ BAC, you think a jury would convict EO? 

His BAC is likely irrelevant if he was arrested for being impaired by drugs. 
 

If the blood test shows a controlled substance in his system and you add the civilian complaint, followed by the officer’s observations and the failed sobriety testing, then it wouldn’t be a hard case at all.

 

More than likely is this gets pled down.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Bangarang

[NoSaint]

22 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

His BAC is likely irrelevant if he was arrested for being impaired by drugs. 
 

If the blood test shows a controlled substance in his system and you add the civilian complaint, followed by the officer’s observations and the failed sobriety testing, then it wouldn’t be a hard case at all.

 

More than likely is this gets pled down.

fair assessment based on the little we know 

[YoloinOhio]

The only Ed Oliver news I’ve seen this week 

 

 

[Doc]

41 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

His BAC is likely irrelevant if he was arrested for being impaired by drugs. 
 

If the blood test shows a controlled substance in his system and you add the civilian complaint, followed by the officer’s observations and the failed sobriety testing, then it wouldn’t be a hard case at all.

 

More than likely is this gets pled down.

 

I'm betting that with the type of lawyer(s) EO will have, it won't be that easy.  In which case a plea deal is a certainty.

 

The question then will be, with no BAC, what can the league do WRT suspension?  Probably not much.

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Doc

[Bangarang]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I'm betting that with the type of lawyer(s) EO will have, it won't be that easy.  In which case a plea deal is a certainty.

 

The plea deal is almost a certainty even if Ed has a public defender. 

[GoBills808]

15 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

The only Ed Oliver news I’ve seen this week 

 

 

bUt LoOk aT hOw ThAt HoRsE iS wEaViNG