senate Bill S754A

Defines the terms "impaired" and "intoxication" for the purposes of the vehicle and traffic law

download pdf

Sponsor

Co-Sponsors

view all co-sponsors

Bill Status


  • Introduced
  • In Committee
  • On Floor Calendar
    • Passed Senate
    • Passed Assembly
  • Delivered to Governor
  • Signed/Vetoed by Governor
view actions

actions

  • 09 / Jan / 2013
    • REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION
  • 19 / Mar / 2013
    • 1ST REPORT CAL.244
  • 20 / Mar / 2013
    • 2ND REPORT CAL.
  • 21 / Mar / 2013
    • ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
  • 15 / Apr / 2013
    • AMENDED ON THIRD READING 754A
  • 23 / Apr / 2013
    • PASSED SENATE
  • 23 / Apr / 2013
    • DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
  • 24 / Apr / 2013
    • REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION

Summary

Defines the terms "impaired" and "intoxication" for the purposes of the vehicle and traffic law.

do you support this bill?

Bill Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:
A6491A
Versions:
S754
S754A
Legislative Cycle:
2013-2014
Current Committee:
Assembly Transportation
Law Section:
Vehicle and Traffic Law
Laws Affected:
Ren §119-b to be §119-c, add §§119-b & 120-a, amd §1192, V & T L
Versions Introduced in Previous Legislative Cycles:
2011-2012: S600A, A848A, S600A
2009-2010: S4777, A10917, S4777
2007-2008: A10015

Sponsor Memo

BILL NUMBER:S754A

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in
relation to the definitions of the terms "impaired" and "intoxication"
for the purposes of such law

PURPOSE:

To codify accepted legal definitions and include alteration of
physical or mental abilities by known or unknown substances.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 119-b defines impaired in conformity with the language of the
New York State Court of Appeals ruling in People v. Cruz, 48 NY.2nd
419, (1979).

Section 120-a defines intoxication in conformity with the language of
the New York State Court of Appeals ruling in People v. Cruz, 48
N.Y.2nd 419, (1979) and expands such definition to encompass
situations described in the New York State Court of Appeals ruling in
People v. Litto, 8 N.Y.3rd 692, (2007).

Adds a new subdivision 13 to section 1192 of the VTL providing an
affirmative defense for an operator who suffered and allergic reaction
or medical emergency rather than being impaired by the substance or
combination of substances.

JUSTIFICATION:

All too often, intoxicated drivers who are under the influence of a
substance that has not been placed upon the New York Sate Public
Health Law Schedule 3306 or a substance that cannot be determined,
escape prosecution. Clearly dangerous drivers can frustrate the
prosecution of their own acts by the simple legislatively sanctioned
expedient of refusing a chemical test of their blood breath and urine.
If the driver has no contraband and makes no admissions, the
intoxicating substance ingested will not be known to law enforcement,
a condition precedent to prosecution under our current laws.
Additionally, some clearly dangerous drivers who ingest substances or
combinations of substances not listed in the Public Health Law may not
be prosecuted under our current laws.

In January of 2004, after becoming intoxicated from ingesting an
aerosol spray can of "Dust-off", Vincent Litto veered into oncoming,
traffic, killing 18-year-old Kristian Roggio Litto and injuring James
Sienna, and two others.

The defendant was indicted for the Crimes of Manslaughter 2 Degree,
Vehicular Manslaughter 2 Degree, Criminally Negligent Homicide,
Reckless Endangerment 2 Degree, Reckless Driving, Operating a Motor
Vehicle while in an Intoxicated Condition; Assault 2 Degree (4
counts); Assault 3 Degree (4 counts). In June of 2007, the Court of
Appeals of the State of New York affirmed the dismissal of Vehicular
Manslaughter 2 Degree and Operating a Motor Vehicle while in an
Intoxicated Condition because Difluoroethane, the chemical propellant
in Dust-Off, is not among substances listed in Public Health Law 3306.


Chief Judge Judith Kaye wrote that she is mindful that, with the
court's ruling, there may be circumstances where impaired drivers can
avoid punishment under the law. "If defendant did what the prosecution
charges, then his conduct was reprehensible -- his voluntary
inhalation of hydrocarbon while driving resulted in the death of a
young woman and serious injuries to others," the chief judge wrote.
"Perhaps gaps exist in the law and the prosecution should not have to
rely on the 12 other counts charged. However, a determination by this
court that intoxication in Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1192(3)
includes the use of any substance would improperly override the
legislative policy judgment."

There are numerous instances where individuals are arrested because
they were driving while they were dramatically intoxicated by a drug,
to the point of falling down and becoming unconscious but because
under the facts of each individual case, the substance was not
identified.

In response to this problem a number of states have enacted
legislation that allow for the prosecution of a driver who has
ingested intoxicating substances.

In addition, this bill adds an affirmative defense provision to
section 1192 of the VTL, for an operator who suffered and allergic
reaction or medical emergency rather than being impaired by the
substance or combination of substances.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2011-2012: Passed the Senate (S. 600A/A. 848A)
2009-2010: Reported to Codes (S.4777/A.10917)
2008: Passed the Senate

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None

EFFECTIVE DATE:

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

view bill text
                    S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

                                 754--A
    Cal. No. 244

                       2013-2014 Regular Sessions

                            I N  S E N A T E

                               (PREFILED)

                             January 9, 2013
                               ___________

Introduced by Sens. FUSCHILLO, ADDABBO, AVELLA, FLANAGAN, LARKIN, NOZZO-
  LIO,  RANZENHOFER, SAVINO, STAVISKY -- read twice and ordered printed,
  and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Transportation --
  reported favorably from said committee, ordered to  first  and  second
  report,  ordered  to  a  third reading, amended and ordered reprinted,
  retaining its place in the order of third reading

AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation  to  the  defi-
  nitions of the terms "impaired" and "intoxication" for the purposes of
  such law

  THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  Section 1. Section 119-b of the vehicle and traffic law is  renumbered
section 119-c and a new section 119-b is added to read as follows:
  S 119-B. IMPAIRED. IMPAIRMENT IS REACHED WHEN A DRIVER HAS VOLUNTARILY
CONSUMED  OR  INGESTED  A  SUBSTANCE OR COMBINATION OF SUBSTANCES TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE DRIVER HAS IMPAIRED, TO ANY  EXTENT,  THE  PHYSICAL  AND
MENTAL ABILITIES WHICH A DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO POSSESS IN ORDER TO OPER-
ATE A VEHICLE AS A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT DRIVER.
  S  2.  The  vehicle and traffic law is amended by adding a new section
120-a to read as follows:
  S 120-A. INTOXICATION. INTOXICATION IS A GREATER DEGREE OF  IMPAIRMENT
WHICH  IS  REACHED  WHEN A DRIVER HAS VOLUNTARILY CONSUMED OR INGESTED A
SUBSTANCE OR COMBINATION OF SUBSTANCES TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DRIVER  IS
INCAPABLE  OF EMPLOYING THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL ABILITIES WHICH A DRIVER
IS EXPECTED TO POSSESS IN ORDER TO OPERATE A VEHICLE AS A REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT DRIVER.
  S 3. Section 1192 of the vehicle and traffic law is amended by  adding
a new subdivision 13 to read as follows:
  13.  IT SHALL BE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A CHARGE UNDER ANY SUBDIVI-
SION OF THIS SECTION THAT THE OPERATOR SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION  OR

 EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                           LBD01326-02-3

S. 754--A                           2

MEDICAL  EMERGENCY RATHER THAN BEING IMPAIRED BY THE SUBSTANCE OR COMBI-
NATION OF SUBSTANCES.   PROVIDED, HOWEVER,  THAT  NO  DEFENSE  SHALL  BE
AVAILABLE  IF  ANY  SUCH  CONSUMED OR INGESTED SUBSTANCE IS CONTAINED IN
SECTION THIRTY-THREE HUNDRED SIX OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW.
  S 4. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

Comments

Open Legislation comments facilitate discussion of New York State legislation. All comments are subject to moderation. Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity or hate speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday.

By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.