Under the influence......

[Sylvain]

There is a federal law that makes one a prohibited person if one is using controlled substances.

Perhaps the LEO is confusing federal law with state law? This is a common mistake, and easy to make.

Are you trying to say the LEOs are not legal experts?

Im shocked!

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

That would be up to debate. You are either NOT in a "State of Intoxication" or you ARE in a "State of Intoxication". Being "in a STATE" does not give limits to be above or below.

One "drink" of whiskey would put me into a GREAT state of "intoxication" (have never drank) While my grandfather would have never noticed that you had removed his glass of water until the 3rd drink!

a 1oz to 1.5 oz shot of alcohol, even high proof stuff like Everclear, would not bring you to a state of intoxication. (Unless there were underlying physiological considerations to worry about)

 

[AndersonIN]

a 1oz to 1.5 oz shot of alcohol, even high proof stuff like Everclear, would not bring you to a state of intoxication. (Unless there were underlying physiological considerations to worry about)

Isn't that based solely on YOUR definition of "intoxication"?

Not trying to argue (even though that is a major hobby of mine).....just define.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Isn't that based solely on YOUR definition of "intoxication"?

Not trying to argue (even though that is a major hobby of mine).....just define.

Intoxication: to change one's psychological state by having consumed an intoxicant

Speaking of drinking, it's (generally) a function of volume consumed over time vs. body mass. (other substances can, will, and do work differently)

If you're an 80lb person, then perhaps yes, 1.5oz of high proof alcohol could cause intoxication.

The average US male, though... It isn't going to happen. Doesn't matter if that person drinks a 12 pack of beer a day or hasn't ever had anything in their life. It's still a function of volume vs body mass.

I suspect that one could "hide" alcohol in a beverage for you and A) you wouldn't know, and B) there wouldn't be any detectible changes in your psychological state.

Now, being "under the influence" is a different animal - especially when it comes to operating a MV.

the Indiana Code is quite simple in it's scope. I think that the only way we have to define "intoxication" would be a threshold level determined by BAC?

 

[vzdude]

Are you trying to say the LEOs are not legal experts?

Im shocked!

My LEO friend was shocked that I new the IC and that it had recently changed. He had no idea......

 

[scottka]

I suspect that one could "hide" alcohol in a beverage for you and A) you wouldn't know, and B) there wouldn't be any detectible changes in your psychological state.
QUOTE]

Prove it! Now, you have to drug him without him knowing...

 

[Denny347]

Isn't that based solely on YOUR definition of "intoxication"?

Not trying to argue (even though that is a major hobby of mine).....just define.

IC 9-13-2-86
Intoxicated
Sec. 86. "Intoxicated" means under the influence of:
(1) alcohol;
(2) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1);
(3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance;
(4) a substance described in IC 35-46-6-2 or IC 35-46-6-3; or
(5) a combination of substances described in subdivisions (1) through (4);
so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.175-2001, SEC.1; P.L.151-2006, SEC.4.

 

[AndersonIN]

IC 9-13-2-86
Intoxicated
Sec. 86. "Intoxicated" means under the influence of:
(1) alcohol;
(2) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1);
(3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance;
(4) a substance described in IC 35-46-6-2 or IC 35-46-6-3; or
(5) a combination of substances described in subdivisions (1) through (4);
so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.175-2001, SEC.1; P.L.151-2006, SEC.4.

"so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties."

As stated prior "Isn't that based solely on YOUR definition of "intoxication"?" That of the officer/witnesses????

 

[Denny347]

"so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties."

As stated prior "Isn't that based solely on YOUR definition of "intoxication"?" That of the officer/witnesses????

It is based are inarticulatable facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that said person was suffering from an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties. It is in the details. It is not enough to say that they appeared impaired but rather one must list the reasons WHY that conclusion was drawn.

 

[AndersonIN]

It is based are inarticulatable facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that said person was suffering from an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties. It is in the details. It is not enough to say that they appeared impaired but rather one must list the reasons WHY that conclusion was drawn.

I agree! Based on YOUR definition of "inarticulatable facts". Whether it is a reasonable conclusion would be determined later by a lawyer, jury, judge.

 

[Denny347]

I agree! Based on YOUR definition of "inarticulatable facts". Whether it is a reasonable conclusion would be determined later by a lawyer, jury, judge.

Unlikely to pass screening without the details...