Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Drugs in Georgia

The law in Georgia allows for prosecution if you are under the influence of ANY substance that will impair your ability to drive. The most common item is alcohol, but many drugs can produce a form of impairment. Illegal drugs such as marijuana, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine are but a few of the drugs police officers will be looking for.

Included in the seven drug classifications (per NHTSA’s Drug Evaluation and Classification program) of impairing drugs are many prescription medications. Central nervous system depressants and narcotic analgesics are undoubtedly the most common. Valium, Xanax, and Lorcet are but a few of the commonly prescribed drugs which a person may legally possess with a valid prescription from his or her physician yet still result in an arrest if the individual is driving while under their influence.

There is a program promoted by the Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to train officers to be Drug Recognition Experts (DRE). Allen Trapp has successfully completed training in the Drug Recognition Expert protocol. Once an officer on the street suspects drug impairment, there is a 12-step evaluation that may be undertaken by a DRE to determine if an arrest is warranted.

There have not been any credible studies to support the proposition that DRE examinations are scientifically accurate. Another problem is that there are very few officers trained in drug recognition evaluation, and the trained ones often will ignore the procedures and just make a guess. This results in an arrest, but it also opens the door for a vigorous defense by a properly trained DUI attorney.

Georgia law also outlaws driving with any amount of a controlled substance or any derivative or metabolite thereof in the person’s blood or urine. This is frequently referred to as DUI-drugs “per se.” In 1999 this provision was declared unconstitutional with regard to marijuana because it violated the equal protection clause by treating legal and illegal marijuana smokers differently. A couple of years later the Court of Appeals refused to apply this decision in a case involving cocaine, reasoning that there was no evidence that legally used cocaine (ophthalmic eye drops, in that case) would actually enter the bloodstream.  Despite evidence that legally administered cocaine hydrochloride must enter the bloodstream, the Court of Appeals dismissed another challenge to this type of "driving under the influence of drugs" charge in 2010.

There is some good news to report, however.  Allen Trapp successfully challenged the ruling of a trial judge on a similar issue, and in early 2011 the Court of Appeals ruled that a person charged with DUI drugs cannot be convicted merely because alprazolam (xanax) is detected in his system.  The ruling clearly encompasses other prescription drugs such as valium, Lorcet, and clonazepam, so the State cannot convict a person of driving under the influence of a prescription   drug - even if the driver does not have a prescription - unless the State can prove that the person was incapable of driving safely.

When a person is accused of driving under the influence of drugs – particularly prescription drugs – it is absolutely crucial to retain the services of a pharmacologist. The state will almost always bring in a witness from the “crime lab” who has a degree in chemistry and styles himself a “forensic toxicologist,” although no professional body would consider the person a toxicologist, but would instead label the person from the crime lab what he is, an analytical chemist.

Even worse, over the most pointed objections, Georgia trial judges routinely allow these people to testify about the effects of drugs on people, the metabolism of the drugs, and therapeutic levels. These witnesses are not really toxicologists and are certainly not pharmacologists. They have no graduate level training in pharmacology, and their only claim to expertise is completion of an “in-house” audit style course.

Most jurors can see through the deception and will give more credence to an expert with a doctorate in pharmacology. That is why it is absolutely critical to invest – repeat, invest – in an expert witness with the proper credentials. He or she is absolutely your best defense against the rubbish the state witness will spout on the witness stand.

The simple truth is that the witnesses from the crime lab have more training in how to testify in court than they have in pharmacology. They will use just the right words to make your case sound worse than it is, they will be evasive, and they will not answer cross-examination questions directly but will instead attempt to give a speech about another topic. They are not scientists in the true sense of the word. However, they have gold badges, and they want convictions. Now, is it beginning to add up? Do you want to entrust your future to those people, or do you want to invest in having a future? If you are going to trial on a DUI-drugs charge in Georgia, those are generally your only choices.