Relates to driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or combined use of drugs and alcohol

Justification

Under existing law, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of a drug or drugs, or under the combined influence of alcohol and drugs. "Drugs" is defined as any substance included in the list set forth in § 3306 of the Public Health Law. Unfortunately, the proliferation of synthetic and boutique drugs, such as "bath salts", "synthetic marijuana", and diflouroethane (among many others) are not included in the Public Health Law - and as such allow people to consume these substances, operate a motor vehicle and kill and maim innocent victims across this State.

In 2004, Vincent Litto was driving in Brooklyn on a four-lane road with three occupants in his car. Litto picked up a can of "Dust-Off from the dashboard and sprayed it into his mouth. Dust-Off contains a hydrocarbon, diflouroethane, which assists as a propellant and gives the "buffer" an almost immediate high. Inhalation acts as stimulant of the central nervous system, and within seconds, makes it difficult to perceive and react to the environment. About 45 seconds after huffing the Dust-Off, Litto veered into oncoming traffic. One of the passengers in the oncoming car was killed, and the driver of that car and two of Litto's passengers were seriously injured. Nevertheless, because diflouroethane is not included on the list set forth in PHL § 3306, Litto's abhorrent disregard for human life could not be prosecuted as vehicular manslaughter and vehicular assault. (See People v. Litto, B NY 3rd 692 (2007).

Disturbingly, as new mind and reaction-altering substances are produced and consumed, it is not conceivably possible that the Legislature can expect to keep up with today's. creative chemistry through the existing, antiquated process of adding substances through statutory changes to the Public Health Law. Accordingly, this legislation turns to a long-accepted definition of "intoxicated condition" established by the Court of Appeals in Cruz, Id., where the Court of Appeals, established a clear and concise definition for that term that is equally applicable t6 impairment by drugs.

It is imperative that the Legislature face up to the fact that, under the current scheme, it will never be able to keep up with the "chemists" who are working to provide new ways to get high and circumvent existing drug laws. For example, the use of so-called 'synthetic marijuana" that has swept college campuses in recent years, not only causes a marijuana-type high - but this substance can also generate manic and psychotic episodes. Combine this with driving and every other car on the road represents a body bag waiting to happen. Yet, while organic marijuana is considered a drug - this more potent substance is not. While the burden on the prosecution will be significant, the use of this expanded definition will provide prosecutors with a fighting chance to persuade a court that the chemical substance consumed by a motor vehicle operator had just as great a level of impairment on the operator as alcohol and/or the drugs listed in PHL § 3306.

Legislative history

This is a new bill.

Fiscal implications

None.

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.