North Carolina has long prohibited driving while under the influence, and the term “impairing substance” has been defined under 20-138.1(a)(1) as:
- Alcohol;
- A controlled substance under Chapter 90;
- Any drug or psychoactive substance capable of impairing a person’s physical or mental faculties; or
- Any combination of these substances. N. C. Gen Stat. 20-138.1(a)(1)(2012)
Therefore, this statute qualifies a number of substances, including over the counter medications, as an “impairing substance.” The fact that someone has a prescription to a substance is simply a mitigating factor. A person is considered to be under the influence of an “impairing substance” when the person’s “physical or mental faculties,” or both are materially and appreciably impaired.
So how does the state prove the person in appreciably impaired? It has been established that evidence of some impairing substance is essential, by some means. Below is a list of means that may be available in determining whether an impairing substance is available.
Drug Recognition with Chemical Analysis:
He first method, is a drug recognition expert combined with chemical analysis. In this case, the state would elicit testimony from an officer certified as a drug recognition expert combined with the testimony of a chemical analyst corroborating the officer’s conclusions. The analysis may not be able to reveal how recently the substance was ingested, or the level of concentration of a particular substance. However, this may be all the evidence the state requires.
Testimony of the Arresting Officer:
In State v. Lindley, the state supreme court held that the trial court in an impairment case properly allowed a patrol officer with over five years experience to testify that in his opinion the defendant was under the influence of a mind altering substance. The officer stated that the driver was driving erratically, that his pupils were dilated, and there was a white powdery substance on his lips. There was no smell of alcohol in the car. The court held that the state’s evidence, which consisted primarily of the officer’s testimony, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. State v. Lindley, 286 N.C. 255 (2007)
Corroboration by Expert Testimony of “Drugged Driving”
Finally, the defendant’s admission corroborated by expert testimony is the last factor in proving “drugged driving.” In State v. Highsmith, where the defendant said that he was on his way home from the dentist and had taken pain medication know as Floricet. The court of appeals held that this evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant drove while under the influence of an impairing substance. State v. Highsmith, 173 N.C. App. 600 (2005)
