DUI Charges Dismissed Against Woman Whose Body Brews Alcohol (cnn.com)

HughPickens.com writes: CNN reports that a judge dismissed DUI charges against a woman in upstate New York after being presented with evidence the woman suffers from "auto-brewery syndrome" even though she blew a blood alcohol level more than four times the legal limit. "I had never heard of auto-brewery syndrome before this case," says attorney Joseph Marusak. "But I knew something was amiss when the hospital police took the woman to wanted to release her immediately because she wasn't exhibiting any symptoms." Also known as gut-fermentation syndrome, this rare medical condition can occur when abnormal amounts of gastrointestinal yeast convert common food carbohydrates into ethanol. The process is believed to take place in the small bowel, and is vastly different from the normal gut fermentation in the large bowel that gives our bodies energy.

Comments

Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

If she has a condition that gives her a DUI, she shouldn't be driving, ever. Sucks for her but too bad.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[AK Marc]

True, but not. Drunk driving requires some mens rea. The standard for mens rea is pretty low at this point. She had no knowledge of her condition prior to he DUI, and the DUI made her aware of it. From now on, she should be medically banned from driving, until cured. But at the time, not knowing she had any risk of being drunk, she didn't have a drink and then drive. She didn't knowingly drive drunk. She didn't satisfy the criminal requirements for a crime. She took no action that she could have known would have resulted in a breach of law.

First time for someone they didn't know had it, she shouldn't be prosecuted, but should lose her license. And if she doesn't lose her license, the next time she drives she's taking a deliberate act she knows is in breach of the law, so it will be a DUI.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[v1x]

It depends. In Colorado, for example, DUI/DWAI are clearly strict liability offenses, which do not require mens rea. A court in New York previously concluded that DWI is a strict liability offense, and does not contain the element of mens rea.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical for strict liability is that you are liable for the damages you cause regardless of if you intended to cause them or not.
I suspect that Colorado just calls it strict liability but actually enforces a mixed system where you are treated as if you caused damages.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[AvitarX]

If she was truly not showing symptoms, I don't necissarily see that she should ever count as under the influence/intoxicated.

I (obviously) didn't read the article (just not that kinda site), but if zero symptoms mean no muscle control loss, no reaction time drop, I don't see a problem.

If it means presenting drunk, but not like anything approaching .04 (or.032 I guess) that's different.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[grahammm]

Yet if her condition means that she has more then the permitted blood alcohol then her driving license should be revoked. If (at least in the UK) if you suffer from certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy, then you are automatically disqualified from driving. While, as she did know that she had this condition, she should not be charged with drunk driving, she should be banned from driving on medical grounds.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[willy_me]

That is a little too extreme. Just require a breathalyser lock on the ignition. She is likely not drunk the majority of the time.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have missed an important factor. The legal limits were created for people who are not suffering of this medical condition. Being over the states legal limit in her case does not produce an effect of intoxication or impairment. The state would likely wind up being sued if they tried to medically ban her from driving considering she's over their limits like 24x7.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they will be sued if she's banned from driving. If anything, she needs one of those blow-to-start breathalyzer ignition systems, with thresholds adjusted not to the state limits, but to lower limits that have been agreed to cause impairment to her. If you read the article, you will see there is no guarantee to "fixing" people with this condition, and people with the condition have an unexpectedly much higher tolerance to alcohol.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[AK Marc]

Still requires a voluntary act. That's the current mens rea standard. Almost nothing requires mens rea as originally applied. She took no voluntary act. There was an involuntary act from within her digestive system, but no voluntary act on her part that resulted in a breach of law. You don't have to intend to drive drunk. You just have to drink to satisfy the current mens rea. That is the guilty act, drinking.

It's more explicitly repealed for drunk driving because you can't argue that you were too drunk to realize you were driving drunk. That argument, with strict mens rea should be conviction proof, so mens rea is officially repealed for that offense, though it isn't applied to any offense these days. You only need the intended act that results in the offense, not the intention to commit the offense.

Take a person who fires a gun in the air for new years. The bullet comes down and kills someone. They would likely be charged with a homicide of some degree. The fact that the act was intended to be harmeless is irrelevant. mens rea doesn't apply to anything anymore. The shooter intended to fire the weapon, and that's sufficient for homicide.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[sumdumass]

The problem here is legally drunk. The law presumes that at or over a certain blood alcohol level, you are impaired regardless of any signs or symptoms. In some states this limit is. 08 while others have lowered it to. 04. I don't know of any state that still has a blood alcohol level of .15 or even .10 as the legal limit.

You knowing you are over the limit or displaying symptoms of being impaired doesn't have anything to do with the violations. It could or should have some weight in the penalties but usually there are limits to the extent.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[wonkey_monkey]

If (at least in the UK) if you suffer from certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy, then you are automatically disqualified from driving.

That's decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on when you last had a seizure, under what conditions you have seizures, and other stuf. There's no blanket ban.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[silentcoder]

We had a case like that in the 1980s. My dad was tge investigating officer. That bullet killed a 2 year old in her crib. The shooter got 20 years for aggravated manslaughter.

Granted we have a different legal system. Under the law here all homocide requires an intent to kill. Manslaughter is defined as causing a death where a reasonable person would not. Basically its the criminal version of wrongfull death.
The judge ruled (correctly) that a reasonable person would forsee that firing a gun into the air in an urban environment is reckless and could potentially kill somebodu and thus refrain from doing so.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[serviscope_minor]

Take a person who fires a gun in the air for new years. The bullet comes down and kills someone. They would likely be charged with a homicide of some degree. The fact that the act was intended to be harmeless is irrelevant. mens rea doesn't apply to anything anymore. The shooter intended to fire the weapon, and that's sufficient for homicide.

That's knowingly doing something dangerous though. The fact that he got lucky before then has no bearing. Sure he wasn't doing something to intentionally kill people (so it wouldn't be first degree murder) but he was intentionally doing something dangerous.

If he didn't realise it was dangerous, then he should probably be detained under mental health laws since he's a danger to others (and himself).

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Hognoxious]

Still requires a voluntary act.

Getting behind the wheel is a voluntary act. If you'd bothered to read the link he provided you'd know that.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Typical snaggled-toothed Limey, Daily Mail fan, too, no doubt.

The reading was from in her breath, i.e. gasses in her gut. Her blood level was fine, twat. She was not drunk or under alcoholic influence. Now go and fix your green teeth.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Damouze]

Strict liability offenses are an affront to justice and should be done away sooner rather than later.

This woman should not take the blame for a medical condition that she did not know about. Getting a flat tire is not necessarily the same as getting in an accident. And even if she had caused an accident, she cannot be blamed for it by her blood alcohol levels alone, because apparently she was functioning normally even when the breathalizer tests showed she had a blood alcohol level of between 0.3 and 0.4.

If I were a defense attorney I would go to great lengths to show that the premise of the correlation between the amount of alcohol in someone's breath and his/her actual blood alcohol level is false in his/her case. That can be easily proven by taking an actual blood test. If that test shows that the actual promillage of alcohol in her blood is much lower than would be expected from the breathalizer test alone, the breathalizer test is a false positive and an any arguments following from that breathalizer test are by definition false as well.

Should this woman be driving? That is not for me, you or any judge to decide. Only a medical professional can advise this woman on that matter. It is up to her to decide what she does with that advice.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

We had a case like that in the 1980s. My dad was tge investigating officer. That bullet killed a 2 year old in her crib. The shooter got 20 years for aggravated manslaughter.

Doubtful that he fired it directly into the air a bullet fired straight up isnt going to penetrate the roofing tiles, let alone the plywood underneath, the insulation, the drywall and finally the child. A far more likely explanation is a good ole common ND at a relatively horizontal (less than 45 degrees from the ground plane) penetrated a window. Unless the childs crib was outside that is...

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my.
  Medically banned from driving is to extreme when they better and actual desicion was to tell her she can only drive if she voulntarily restricts her own diet - not all food cause her guts to her body to brew alcohol - don't eat the food that do (carbs) and treatment is successful - there is no known "cure" just treatment ( ie food restriction )

Knowingly eat carbs and drive ---- she is now in violation of the law because she will be DUI soon. Staying at home for the night - eat all the carbs she wants

Re: Doesn't matter.

[rmdingler]

I suspect you are speaking about different things:

firing into the air is not the same thing as firing straight up into the air.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good god,

"if you suffer from certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy, then you are automatically disqualified from driving"

the group one tests for driving qualification if you suffer from epilepsy are
1) your condition is under control for a sustained period of time ie - no seizures for 12 months is the common group one test
2) your medical treatment is stable or improving ( smaller doses of same medication ) ie - no changes in your medication
3) yes there are exceptions because there are a broad range of types of seizures categories ..... seizures during sleep only being one

more information

https://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/driving

the easy online quesionare

http://www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/driving-and-epilepsy-interactive-guide?gclid=CJevw8_QjcoCFRCGaQodfQULMw#.VokYTlKqmSp

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Cederic]

http://www.theguardian.com/soc...

Carry on, cuntface.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[drinkypoo]

If he didn't realise it was dangerous, then he should probably be detained under mental health laws since he's a danger to others (and himself).

Or at minimum forbidden to own or operate a firearm. Sometimes it seems like what is really needed in gun control is to prove a basic knowledge of Newtonian physics (no math, just the basic facts will do) because people don't seem to understand how bullets behave.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Strict liability is an absolute abomination and should be abolished. There are some powers legislatures should not have (I would argue based on our Constitution that they DO not have them, but our courts are too statist to rely on for actual justice).

One of those things legislatures should not be allowed to do is presume something just because they say so. Blood alcohol levels as presumption of impairment is just the start. If you can't drive properly I'm really not interested in WHY you can't do so. If you can, fine. Now, we know there are certain levels of alcohol beyond which nobody had proper physical control. We also know that level is way past the idiotic .08 level they write into these stupid laws. (93 percent of injury/death involved accidents where the driver's impairment was the primary cause involve levels greater than .12, usually much greater. That has never changed regardless of the legal levels, but of course science never matters to the anti drinking crowd)

In addition, they lie to the public anyway about the number of such accidents. If I'm a passenger in a car involved in an accident and I was the only one drunk, if a cop notices this it will be listed as an 'alcohol related accident' even though I did nothing to cause it. Same thing if a driver not over the legal limit is hit by a sober driver who was at fault. How many people know that?

Then of course there's how they want it both ways. You can be charged with a DUI if you're under the limit but a cop thinks you're impaired anyway. So why have a limit at all? If a cop can prove impairment with a person barely intoxicated he can damned well do so at higher levels IF such impairment exists.

We have strict liability with blood alcohol levels because some people were being found not guilty of being impaired and to the MADD crowd, being found not guilty of DUI is unacceptable ever. So we get ever increasing injustice just to make some people feel good about getting revenge on others for crimes that different people committed.

We must end the ability of lawmakers to say something is so just because they say so. The solution to all kinds of impairment laws is to use scientific reaction and perception tests (none of this 'recite the alphabet backwards' crap) If your perception and reaction times are good then you're good. If not, you're not good. I don't care if it's from drinking, lack of sleep, being pissed off, etc. Safe is safe and unsafe is unsafe. Moral judgments and the outrage of prohibitionists should never be a factor.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet the state bans all sorts of people from driving for medical reasons, like epileptics and such.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[penguinoid]

If she has a condition that gives her a DUI, she shouldn't be driving, ever. Sucks for her but too bad.

Maybe so, but was she under the influence?

Re:Doesn't matter.

[jeremyp]

So you think your exhaled breath comes from your gut. Is that because everybody tells you you are talking out of your arse?

Re: Doesn't matter.

[silentcoder]

That house had a sync plate roof and asbestos ceiling, but yes it was fired upwards at an angle.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[i.r.id10t]

Yes, that falls under the "dumb ass" classification.

I admin - I've shot a gun or three for new years and fourth of july. Straight down into the ground or other safe back stop.

Heck, even dumped a full 100 round belt thru a full auto 1919 a buddy owns - again, directly into a safe backstop.

There is "fun" and "exciting" and there is also "being a dumb ass". First 2 are OK, 3rd isn't.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, most people seem to forget that kind of thing once they leave school, it goes in one ear, and right out the other.

Just yesterday I was trying to explain to somebody that using air in a cooler is nothing special, and that GM had no reason to buy it and put it on a shelf, but even if they had, the patent would have expired anyway since he exclaimed it was in the 1980s.

People still believe in the water powered car.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

When she blows a .08, she is still more fit to drive than when a person who does not have this condition blows a .08.

Now, show me proof that an epileptic having a seizure is somehow less debilitating then a non-epileptic having a seizure, and you may have a point.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

She didn't knowingly drive drunk. She didn't satisfy the criminal requirements for a crime. She took no action that she could have known would have resulted in a breach of law.

Nope, that's wrong. DUI is strictly defined as having a BAC above a specific percent, regardless of whether the person is actually impaired. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but that's how it is.
Instead of dismissing the charges, she should have been found guilty and had her sentence suspended. While you may not intend to break the law, or know you're breaking the law, you're still breaking the law. Intent and knowledge could be used to reduce or eliminate penalties, but it should not be allowed to eliminate guilt.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

better teeth than yours according to the world health organisation. Tell me ahain just what are you fuckwits number #1 in again apart from guns and prisoners?

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

She took no voluntary act.

Yes, she did. She operated the vehicle on the public roads.

You don't have to intend to drive drunk. You just have to drink to satisfy the current mens rea. That is the guilty act, drinking.

Nope. The Guilty act is operating the vehicle with a BAC in excess of what the law allows. The duty is on you to ensure you are in compliance with the law.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[ArmoredDragon]

We arrest people for DUI because they are driving while impaired. Apparently this woman has no symptoms with a BAC of .40, which is enough to put normal people in a coma (.50 is enough to kill a typical person.) Since she obviously has a very high tolerance for it, and thus isn't impaired, there's no sense in restricting her driving.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he didn't realise it was dangerous, then he should probably be detained under mental health laws since he's a danger to others (and himself).

Or at minimum forbidden to own or operate a firearm. Sometimes it seems like what is really needed in gun control is to prove a basic knowledge of Newtonian physics (no math, just the basic facts will do) because people don't seem to understand how bullets behave.

I suspect someone doesn't understand Newtonian physics as well as they think they do.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/03/watch_out_for_falling_bullets.html

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a person who fires a gun in the air for new years. The bullet comes down and kills someone. They would likely be charged with a homicide of some degree. The fact that the act was intended to be harmeless is irrelevant. mens rea doesn't apply to anything anymore. The shooter intended to fire the weapon, and that's sufficient for homicide.

But it is probably sufficient to make it manslaughter rather than murder, since the intention isn't necessarily there.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[chmod a x mojo]

Not only that, the human body is extremely adaptable. It's likely she would behave quite erratically if she DIDN'T have the "normal" BAC that she had.

Even saying this woman shouldn't be able to drive is stretching it. It is presumed that she had this condition when she was first learning to drive, and when she took her drivers road test. From the way it sounds THIS is her baseline for sobriety, and if she can ( and seemingly HAS ) proved that she is capable of properly operating a vehicle at her baseline she should be allowed. Either by carrying a special license the DOT prints ( like the text on back for "requires corrective lenses to drive" or special endorsements) or by a doctors note, updated yearly / every two years like Federal physicals for a CDL.

This isn't saying alcoholics should be able to drive with BACS like this, they choose to have high BACs, and no matter how diligent they drink don't maintain that level perfectly. I.E. while sleeping the BAC drops to almost zero in most people. In this woman the BAC should stay the same all the time since it is her baseline.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[c0d3g33k]

Yes, that falls under the "dumb ass" classification.

I admin - I've shot a gun or three for new years and fourth of july. Straight down into the ground or other safe back stop.

You must live on a sand dune, because most of the places I've lived, there are numerous large rocks in the ground than can easily redirect a bullet into an arbitrary direction, some of which include an upward vector. If you live anywhere the glaciers extended during the ice age, there's a good chance that there are just as many large rocks and boulders in the ground as there is soil. "Safe" and "dumb ass" are matters of interpretation. It may be you were less of one and more of the other than you thought. And more lucky too.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[i.r.id10t]

I have a large earth berm that went part way around an above ground pool. In the totally wrong spot to actually set up a range with decent distance (25 yards minimum) but composed of mostly Florida dirt and potting soil. No rocks, etc. Perfectly safe to catch a couple of 22 rounds.

The machine guns were shot at a real range, with proper berms almost 50' tall.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[cascadingstylesheet]

Should this woman be driving? That is not for me, you or any judge to decide. Only a medical professional can advise this woman on that matter. It is up to her to decide what she does with that advice.

I was with you until that last sentence. it is not solely up to her whether she should be allowed to drive (on public roads, anyway). Driving on public roads is not a right.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

She had no knowledge of her condition prior to he DUI, and the DUI made her aware of it. From now on, she should be medically banned from driving, until cured.

The legal phrase (in latin) for this situation is:

ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat

Which means: ignorance of fact excuses but ignorance of law does not. This is an obvious exception to the classic ignorance of the law is no excuse sentiment, as expressed by the GP, since not knowing, in fact, that one had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, due to a recognized medical condition, and not otherwise being able to discern drunkenness in oneself, a reasonable person must conclude that there was no crime, at least in this instance, because under the circumstances a guilty mind or mens rea cannot exist.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no guilt. It is unjust to convict a person of a crime that no reasonable person could have predicted.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[angel'o'sphere]

She actually only needs to be "banned from driving" if her medical condition "makes her drunk" or puts here above the legal alcohol limits.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[angel'o'sphere]

What measurement is 0.40 and 0.50? We use promille (1/1000 of volume).

With 0.4 promille no one is even remotely drunk. Koma, depending on your "toughness" is somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 promille.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Well, if her condition also allows her to drive normally with a BAC of 0.2, why should the fact that other people would be intoxicated prevent her from driving? What if she had a disorder that caused false positives all the time, without the alcohol?

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet if her condition means that she has more then the permitted blood alcohol then her driving license should be revoked. If (at least in the UK) if you suffer from certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy, then you are automatically disqualified from driving. While, as she did know that she had this condition, she should not be charged with drunk driving, she should be banned from driving on medical grounds.

Having no ability to drive is a pretty serious disadvantage. May be figuring out if she is an actual danger to anyone first is a good idea. There was a case precisely like this in Japan I read about a while back. Not sure how it ended but that can be used as a precedent for... something.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Damouze]

I can understand why you would say that. However, punishing her for having a medical condition is an injustice that trumps (in my opinion at least) any injustice she may cause while driving and that is exactly what would happen If the justice system were to ban her from driving. She would be punished for something she has virtually no control over. The fact that her baseline blood alcohol level is over the limit does not automatically mean she is incapable of functioning properly in traffic. This woman has a medical condition that skews the entire correlation between the amount of alcohol in her breath and the amount of alcohol in her blood. Medical conditions are the domain of medical professionals, not the justice system and therefore the latter should have virtually no say in the matter. Since medical professionals cannot - in most cases at least - legally prevent their patients from going against their medical advice that is the only thing they can do: advise their patients on their medical condition and the potential consequences of going against that advice. It is only after going against medical advice that the justice system can come in.

We, as a people, should always be wary of any kind of legislation that presumes guilt over innocence.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[BitZtream]

DUI doesn't require knowledge or consent in most states. Ignorance of the law or how you're breaking it does not make you innocent, its mind blowing that people keep parroting that sort of crap.

Mens Rea != Ignorance is bliss

And no, she shouldn't lose her license, thats fucking retarded ignorance by assholes who don't understand how the world works.

This woman shouldn't be prosecuted ... and wasn't after the truth came out. Good. This is a judge doing the right thing even though he legally could have hit her with a class 1 DUI in NY (highest of the high) due to the extreme level of her intoxication based on how the laws are written in a stupid way that acts as if percentage is a strong indicator of intoxication. I've watched people in court go to jail for DUI because they got caught in a speed trap where the cop pretty much charges EVERYONE HE SEES with a DUI because they are driving from downtown at 2:30am and sits in an area where the is a hidden 35mph sign that no one can see and everyone regularly does 55mph past it. I've seen people pulled over and taken to jail on a DUI charge at this particular place and blowing exactly 0.000 when taken to the police station. Its only been in the last 3 months that this particular officer has been dismissed ... after going on for years with multiple newspaper articles about him specifically and his buddies who hang out in that particular area when they want some tickets. In the case of my friend, the JUDGE told his lawyer that he should file some sort of charges against the officer because of this bullshit. Thats how fucked up DUI crap is.

The burden of guilt for DUI is basically 0, so if you get charged, you're almost certainly going to be smacked with a bunch of bullshit, regardless of your actual ability to drive. Tell a cop someone has been drinking (and they never have and are completely sober), have the cop do the field tests and every single person he/she sees will qualify as intoxicated. The whole DUI thing has turned into a massive money making racket.

She should be allowed to drive in a safe way, IF THAT IS POSSIBLE. First off, since she is constantly exposed to alcohol, her body has a tolerance, which is why she was able to still even stand up at that level of BAC. Put that much into someone who never drinks and they'll be lucky if they aren't dead by morning, again illustrating how fucking retarded DUI laws are. Since she's been doing this shit for more than half her life, you have to be an ignorant prick to not recognize the possibility that it effects her differently than you.

She was too intoxicated to drive, no argument, but now she has the information required to manage the situation, and working with medical professionals she can continue to do things that will lower that level to the point that she exhibits no symptoms of the alcohol ... because she's built up a level of immunity to it. She's been doing it every day for years ... and this is the FIRST time its been a problem, and there is a KNOWN explanation for why it was so bad this time (dietary issues at the moment).

Do you think people who have seizures should never be able to drive? Cause I can give you some simple medicines that by themselves do nothing, but taken together will cause a seizure in some people ... all you have to do is know that and not take the two together and you won't have a seizure ... should those people not be allowed to drive too, due to your ignorance?

This isn't a black and white case and you are certainly wrong in every way that matters. Fortunately, it doesn't look like the NY legal system is as dumb about it as you are.

So take your 'everything is black and white' attitude about DUI and shove it up your ass :) People like you are a part of the problem. Not as big of a problem as the actual drunk drivers who should be hung high, but pretending that one size fits all just shows how absolutely utterly ignorant you are.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[Mal-2]

We use percent, not permille, so 0.4% is 4.0 permille.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand where you are coming from but if you did a little research you would discover that people with this condition are not impaired. The point of the DUI laws are to prevent impaired driving. These people are not driving under any impairment. She got her driver's license under these conditions. It is not like epilepsy where the driver poses a risk to others. There is no value to society in preventing this woman (or people like her) from driving.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Less missing teeth? "Our poor are better than your poor"? Fuck off.

The stereotype for me never included missing teeth, just that they were big and ugly. Like those big, ugly chins from all that royalty inbreeding over the centuries.

Ever watch Family Guy? I'm on the same page as that show in terms of the British teeth stereotype.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[shutdown -p now]

Why do we even have strict liability offenses at all?

What's the purpose of punishing someone for a crime that they didn't know is one, and/or had no intent of committing?

Re:Doesn't matter.

[shutdown -p now]

The intent of banning her from driving is not to punish her, but to ensure safety of others on the roads.

Arguably, this condition should be treated the same as a disability that would prevent one from using the car, and government should step in and provide her with subsidized access to alternate means of transportation.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

That have actual symptoms that would cause serious damage. If she doesn't suffer from impairment symptoms, your point is moot.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[KGIII]

Was she actually intoxicated or was it just her breath that indicated she had a higher amount of alcohol in her breath than the legal limit? The summary says "she blew" which does not, to me, indicate a state of inebriation but rather a score on a test which may (or may not - it seems) actually correlate to a state of drunkenness.

That said, I too did not read the article. I am no heretic! (Sometimes I look at the pictures. This was not one of those times.)

Re:Doesn't matter.

[KGIII]

I just went and cheated - I skimmed the article. She is 61. I am okay with that. She got a flat. I am okay with that. She didn't want to change the flat. I am okay with that. She decided to continue driving with a flat. I am not okay with that. Regardless of her medical condition, revoke her license. (This was not a run flat or anything - it was obvious enough for a passer-by to notice and call the police because they feared she had been in an accident.)

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance of the law or how you're breaking it does not make you innocent, its mind blowing that people keep parroting that sort of crap.

Mens Rea != Ignorance is bliss

Your lack of understanding of the law doesn't constitute an error on my part. Mens rea has been reduced to "deliberate act" for most purposes.
 
If you sit on a chair, but didn't know the chair was broken, and the chair fails. The same termites that ate the chair ate the floor, and you fall through the floor when the chair fails. You land on someone and kill them. That's not mens rea because you didn't take any act you could have conceived would result in the death of another. No mens rea. The knowledge of the law, or intention to break the law is unrelated to mens rea these days. Now, if you knew you had a horrific termite infestation and didn't take action to fix it, then the act of sitting on a chair would constitute mens rea, as you knew there was an underlying issue that was integral in the homicide.

Do you think people who have seizures should never be able to drive?

My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Most states (if not all) prohibit untreated epileptics from driving. If you don't like me pointing out reality, then go argue with reality, not me. You just look like an idiot, and reality doesn't care.
 
I get you have some personal crusade against DUI, but again, reality doesn't care about your petty biases and bigotry.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

same thing with folks who are blind. they should not be allowed to drive either, but obviously (i hope?) that is not so as to "punish" them for their medical condition, but to safe guard the public at large.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot find any reference to any testing other than a breathalyzer. That being said, the testing is coded into law so a result is a legal intoxication regardless of her actual intoxication. This happens to people all the time. They drink regularly and the measly drink and a half that puts them over the legal limit does not impair them in any noticeable ways. But have a headlight burn out on the way homeor forget to use a turn signal or the cop just makes something up because he saw the car parked at or near a bar, the cop smells alcohol or claims he does and they are busted.

The current law makes no difference if the person is intoxicated or not once they reach a measured bac. The only way is if something is wrong with the testing (which i think had something to do here ) and it can be shown. For instance a blood test where they used alcohol based swabs in drawing the blood or failed to put the preservation in the solution. Also some breathalyzer tests can give false positives if a person is suffering from ketosis. The ketones will regoster as ethanol alcohol even though they do not carry the same effect on the body.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[jrumney]

That can be easily proven by taking an actual blood test.

I don't know about the US, but in a lot of countries, you have the right to request an immediate blood test after being found to be over the limit on a breath test. Mainly this is due to the fact that a breath test will measure high for very recent consumption, as evaporated alcohol from the stomach may be mixing with air exhaled from lungs. The same process is probably occurring here, and her blood alcohol level may be much lower than expected from that breath alcohol reading, though it is likely that her body/mind has adapted to a higher base level, which is a bit more problematic from a legal standpoint, as the blood alcohol limit has no allowance for different tolerance in individuals.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used up my posts saying stupid shit so I'll have to say this as an AC...

I do wish that it wasn't an arbitrary limit. I do wish we had a reliable, simple, consistent test for impairment. Then, if you're impaired, you are ineligible to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway. As it stands, you can be busted for an OUI on a lawn tractor, on your property. There have been cases where people have been convicted for being in a vehicle that could not run (one case that I recall was a vehicle without a battery and would not run even if it had one - it was in Winston-Salem, NC in 1996 as I recall) because they had the keys and were inside a motor vehicle or, in the case that I'm recollecting, they had the key in the ignition and were sitting in the car instead of staying inside to keep fighting with his wife - they were having an argument and the ACLU couldn't even help him out.

I have to say, in the politest words possible, this is fucking retarded. The case was all over the local news and a group known as MADD was celebrating in the streets with the findings. Literally, celebrating in the streets and saying how this would make the streets safer. During this time the press covered a number of other cases with similar outcomes and similar circumstances - I do not recollect them all. I'm also too lazy to Google.

Now, don't get me wrong... I don't really drink any more but I'm a recovering addict. (Sort of - I don't subscribe to the AA thing and I have, in fact, had as many as two drinks in one "sitting" since quitting but I've had no more than a half dozen sittings in over three years - after drinking for fourty years.) I've driven drunk and never even had an OUI. Hell, I haven't had a speeding ticket in 40 years. That said - I'm very much against driving while intoxicated, even if I'm guilty myself. I'm against it because I learned - I got sloppy when I retired and started no longer being a functional alcoholic. I regret having driven drunk and am glad that I didn't harm anyone. It will not happen again - not even with one drink in me.

So, that's some perspective from my view and why I have it.

The law is fucking retarded. If you can get an OUI for sitting in a broken vehicle, that can not be started, simply because the keys are in the ignition and you're shitfaced the law is broken. Not only is the law broken, it was broken in all the other instances where there was a miscarriage of justice in similar instances. The car did not even have the capacity to start.

There needs to be some method to test for impairment, regardless of substance use, and it should be objective and easy enough for a moderately well trained police officer to administer in a timely fashion.

I suspect that we're probably on the same page if not very similar pages. Even as a non-drinker who has learned the dangers of operating while intoxicated, I'm rather offended by the arbitrary nature of these laws. This should not, of course, be considered an advocacy of driving while impaired. Driving while impaired is a bad idea and the person you hurt may not be yourself.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[mysidia]

If she has a condition that gives her a DUI, she shouldn't be driving, ever. Sucks for her but too bad.

No.... since she had a Blood Alcohol content of 0.3, but no symptoms of being drunk, at a level that renders other people unconcious, then apparently her body has adapted to the condition in some manner, so the traditional BAC measurement became meaningless for her, and they should independently determine if she is "capable of safely driving" using criteria other than their apparently flawwed techniques of analyzing human body chemistry.

If so, then they should through testing establish the 0.3 BAC baseline, And accommodate the disability or her special ability by allowing her to drive, provided she test and ensure the BAC is 0.30 or less, before driving, and stop at least once per 30 minutes to re-test while driving for an extended period.

For sure they should hold her 'innocent', because there is no way she could have known about her BAC of 0.3, if she was functioning normally at that level and not feeling ill or unusual.

The values the authorities are commonly using for assessing possible drunkenness are valid for the typical healthy human with no such conditions are adaptations, But in fact, these values are specific to individuals' bodies ---- people can be drunk with a much lower BAC than the commonly used threshold, and people can be not influenced with a BAC higher than the commonly used threshold.

The article says she "Suffers from Auto-brewery syndrome", suggesting it as a disease or infliction, and therefore implying possibe negative experiences, or unwanted affects resulting from it, and if so, then she should have doctors looking at if it could be safe and beneficial to end the condition such as by administering anti-fungal medications.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[mysidia]

Take a person who fires a gun in the air for new years. The bullet comes down and kills someone.

Unless the offender is a child or already found mentally incompetent, they are likely to be held to the standard that any reasonable person will be aware that the output of a deadly weapon is a substantial and unjustifiable risk of danger to life and limb.

The act of firing the gun into the air is itself a criminal infraction, and committing any crime when acting with intentional disregard while handling a deadly weapon meets the general mens rea requirement for commission of a crime through negligent or reckless act.

So it is not unlikely that they would be guilty of manslaughter.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[mysidia]

Sure he wasn't doing something to intentionally kill people (so it wouldn't be first degree murder) but he was intentionally doing something dangerous.

He was deliberately doing something illegal that can kill people, operating a device that is extremely well-known to have this danger. I am not too sure that the person who was killed cares what degree murder it was.

IMO, in such extreme circumstances where someone so suddenly causes the death of an innocent person, without voluntary participation of their target, through such flagrant and reckless misbehavior, then it is basically equivalent to Murder 2, Or Murder 1, if the reckless misbehavior was actually pre-meditated/planned in advance, or the person knew of a death from that in advance, if an implement involved is: (1) A deadly machine, (2) A projectile such as a dart or arrow, (3) A tripping hazard created by the offender, or (4) A drug, chemical, poisonous substance, or rotten food product past its use by date.

I consider the same about people driving on the road who intentionally run red lights, or intentionally commit other major violations; If you plow over a pedestrian while talking on your cell phone, it should be Murder 2.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Damouze]

You both misunderstood.

What I said was she should not be banned from driving straight away. Until she does something that shows her incapacity to function properly in traffic, it would not be fair to her to ban her from driving, because it -would- be a form of punishment. Maybe not intentional, but it would surely be perceived that way.

Now the moment she causes an accident, having been forwarned by her medical specialist(s), she would be culpable. Not before.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[wonkey_monkey]

Just burp into this tube please sir.

Look, it's either this or we take you down the station and stick a hose up your bum.

Re: Doesn't matter.

[wonkey_monkey]

Apparently this woman has no symptoms with a BAC of .40

She did have symptoms. She was pulled over because she was driving erratically and her speech was reportedly slurred. Further complicating things, she had been drinking earlier.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[david_thornley]

There are not-my-fault medical conditions that will prevent someone from driving. Epilepsy is one such. Of course, this is likely to be a situation where the breath test is inaccurate and does not reflect blood alcohol level (the summary says she blew high on blood alcohol, not that her blood was found to have too much alcohol in it).

Re:Doesn't matter.

[doccus]

Unless you can prove the existence of this illness beyond a shadow of a doubt and that you have been definitely diagnosed with it prior to having been involved in the accident// then it will not count as a defense. If you CAN however it will not hrlp either because you will be knowingly over the limit .. or impaired. Your insurance will be invalidated and you will be liable for the full amount.
If you can NOT prove the existence of this illness and or that you have been diagnosed with it then as far as the courts and insurabnce are concerned it's all due to exceess drinking and your charges will proceed and your insurance will be invalidated.
I been there.
[Disclaimer] Nothing in the proceeding should be construed as giving legal advice. [] ...Except that no matter what you do in this situation they got you by the short and curlies ;-( :sigh:

Re:Doesn't matter.

[doccus]

Unless you can prove the existence of this illness beyond a shadow of a doubt and that you have been definitely diagnosed with it prior to having been involved in the accident// then it will not count as a defense. If you CAN however it will not hrlp either because you will be knowingly over the limit .. or impaired. Your insurance will be invalidated and you will be liable for the full amount.
If you can NOT prove the existence of this illness and or that you have been diagnosed with it then as far as the courts and insurabnce are concerned it's all due to exceess drinking and your charges will proceed and your insurance will be invalidated.
I been there.
[Disclaimer] Nothing in the proceeding should be construed as giving legal advice. [] ...Except that no matter what you do in this situation they got you by the short and curlies ;-( :sigh:

P.S. It took 3 yearsn before I even found out how come 3 glasses of cider could last in the system for 14 hours. Never heard of this illness until then.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Kelsen]

"From now on, she should be medically banned from driving, until cured. But at the time, not knowing she had any risk of being drunk, she didn't have a drink and then drive. She didn't knowingly drive drunk."

From the article, it appears that while she unknowingly had alcohol in her system, it didn't affect her the way alcohol that is imbibed does. Specifically, she exhibited no symptoms.

If that is the case, she was not driving under the influence of alcohol, knowingly or not.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Nihilism means nothing to me.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[doccus]

Unless you can prove the existence of this illness beyond a shadow of a doubt and that you have been definitely diagnosed with it prior to having been involved in the accident// then it will not count as a defense. If you CAN however it will not hrlp either because you will be knowingly over the limit .. or impaired. Your insurance will be invalidated and you will be liable for the full amount.
If you can NOT prove the existence of this illness and or that you have been diagnosed with it then as far as the courts and insurabnce are concerned it's all due to exceess drinking and your charges will proceed and your insurance will be invalidated.
I been there.
[Disclaimer] Nothing in the proceeding should be construed as giving legal advice. [] ...Except that no matter what you do in this situation they got you by the short and curlies ;-( :sigh:

P.S. It took 3 yearsn before I even found out how come 3 glasses of cider could last in the system for 14 hours. Never heard of this illness until then.

p.p.s. Had I not had ANY thing to drink that day I might have suspected something was amiss. Certainly i never gave any credence to those people who used to accuse me of smelling like alcohol before when I hadn't indulged. I assumed it was because of my liver or pancreas.. both of which can contribute to some awful odors...
So FYI.. Worth double checking if people mention it to you..

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Bitbeisser]

I am not so sure if with this medical condition, she should ne be able to drive at all (and hence lose her license). If it's just the Ethanol in the breath that caused her to fail a breathalyzer test, that does not mean that she also has/had an increased blood alcohol level and that would be what would impair her ability to safely drive...

Re:Doesn't matter.

[StikyPad]

Well, the other aspect is that "self-brewers" don't suffer from the same intoxicating effects of alcohol. In fact, they often perform normally at levels exceeding those that would cause other people to become comatose, sometimes exceeding 0.04. So, if you didn't drink, and you're not intoxicated, and your BAC is internally generated... should you get a DUI? How would you even be aware of your BAC? Common sense says such a person should not receive a DUI, and fortunately for her, the judge agreed.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[AK Marc]

Since impairment is hard to measure, the laws are written such that it's not about the impairment, but the BAC level. The people with a genetic sensitivity to alcohol, if stumbling drunk at 0.07 would be "legal" as a BAC below the legal limit is a defense to DUI, and anything above the legal limit is drunk.

Also note that in this case, she was exhibiting signs of being drunk at the time, so was likely affected. None of the arguments mentioned in TFA indicated that she argued she wasn't drunk, just that she didn't drink to get there, and had no idea she was over the limit and no reason to suspect she was.

Not that your argument couldn't work, but that she took the easy argument, and argued what I said, not what you said, which is why I said it.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as how she apparently suffers no apparent ill effects from the condition, I don't see why she should have her license stripped. Nobody realized she had a high BAC until they ran a breathalyzer; no typical symptoms (inability to balance or think coherently, reduced reaction time) that are the reason for BAC-based laws presented.

Comercial potential

[John Da' Baddest]

Commercial potential for wino's tired of lining up for MD 20/20. Or for prisoners who can't readily get bottles - let your body do all the work! Maybe also as a supplement before a long posting in Saudi Arabia.

Re:Comercial potential

[peragrin]

It is easy to test for, and easy to cure. A round of antibiotics will kill it.

Re:Comercial potential

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeast isn't a bacteria so no, antibiotics will not kill it.

Re:Comercial potential

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Antifungal apparently will though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Comercial potential

[cerberusti]

There are things which would kill it, but antibiotics are not one of those things.

The problem is that most of the things which would wipe out all of the yeast would also kill you.

Re:Comercial potential

[MBGMorden]

Yeast isn't a bacteria so no, antibiotics will not kill it.

As a matter of fact it'll probably make it stronger. Yeast and bacteria tend to vie for the same resources and keep each other balanced. A sharp drop in one causes an increase in the other.

It's why many women will get a yeast infection immediately following a round of antibiotics (some men too - it's less common but men do get them). Some if they're being prescribed them will just go ahead and ask for diflucan (a pill used to treat yeast infections) as well if they're ever prescribed antibiotics.

So she's just a bad driver?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or...

Re:So she's just a bad driver?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or sometimes shit just happens.

And here's the "crazy thing," says Marusak. "Her husband drives to meet friends and she is driving home. She gets a flat close to home but doesn't want to change the tire so keeps on driving. Another driver sees her struggling with the car and calls it in as an accident. So if she hadn't had that flat tire, she'd not know to this day that she has this condition."

Re:So she's just a bad driver?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or sometimes shit just happens.

Driving on a flat, no matter how "close to home" she is, makes her a bad driver.

According to the story (I read it elsewhere yesterday), they determined she had the condition by keeping her for a day for observation, and observed that in the AM her BAC was low but climbed steadily through the day despite "not drinking any alcohol."
However, she was not in some kind of lockdown facility, and I suspect that they did not think to remove all the alcohol-based hand sanitizer from her hospital room and keep her locked in her room.
And yes, I've seen people drink that stuff before, and yes it will get you really drunk, fast. There are few lengths a hardened Alcoholic will not go to in order to catch a buzz.

To me, this story sounds like a case of a wife with a closet drinking problem, who got a flat and didn't want to get caught drunk, got caught drunk and concocted a fairy tale she'd read about on the internet, convinced her lawyer to go with it, and then found a way to fool the medical staff, and in turn the Judge as well.

Re: So she's just a bad driver?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. I drove 10km on a flat because I was pissed off I had a flat. It's not that hard. You just go slower. Zero damage to the mag wheel.

Isn't it still DUI?

[BitterOak]

DUI means driving while under the influence of alcohol as measured by your blood alcohol content. It is alcohol in your blood that impairs your ability to drive. It doesn't matter how it got there. Whether you drink, take too much cough medicine, or have a medical condition that causes you to produce alcohol, it's still in your blood and impairing your ability to drive. Now, if it's a first offense, and the defendant didn't know they had the disease, I can see letting them off with a warning, but if the defendant knew about the condition then they have no business driving. Some medical conditions make it unsafe to drive. Blind people, for instance, can't drive. It sucks, but it happens.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[AK Marc]

Other versions of the story indicate that she didn't know she had it until pulled over. So this could well have been the first time she ever heard of it. So she should now lose her license, until cured. But doesn't need to be punished for a rare medical condition she didn't know about.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[EmeraldBot]

DUI means driving while under the influence of alcohol as measured by your blood alcohol content. It is alcohol in your blood that impairs your ability to drive. It doesn't matter how it got there. Whether you drink, take too much cough medicine, or have a medical condition that causes you to produce alcohol, it's still in your blood and impairing your ability to drive. Now, if it's a first offense, and the defendant didn't know they had the disease, I can see letting them off with a warning, but if the defendant knew about the condition then they have no business driving. Some medical conditions make it unsafe to drive. Blind people, for instance, can't drive. It sucks, but it happens.

Except that, if you'd actually read the article (or god forbid, the summary), she showed absolutely no symptoms of it at all until it reached ~0.30, which would be enough to kill most of us. If she suffers no ill effects from it, and it didn't change anything, why not give her a waiver for it? The judge made a reasonable ruling, which is rare for a newstory, especially here. And even though it doesn't seem to have an effect, she put herself on a no sugar, no alcohol, extremely low carb diet to help cut it back a little bit. For once, a news story that doesn't involve negative drama!

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Ichijo]

If she suffers no ill effects from it, and it didn't change anything, why not give her a waiver for it?

Should airlines do the same for their pilots?

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[AmiMoJo]

Aside from anything else, she presumably passed her driving test in this state so should be fit to drive.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

If she suffers no ill effects from it, and it didn't change anything, why not give her a waiver for it?

Should airlines do the same for their pilots?

Why not? The thing here appears to be that her body behaves differently from others. It does not appear as she gets drunk to the same extent from her own alcohol.
That means that the the major issue here is that the alcohol test has false positives.
She shouldn't be allowed to drive while intoxicated, but she isn't intoxicated just because the testing method showed 0.20.

Most people can eat hazelnuts without showing symptoms. If I were to eat hazelnuts I would be in no shape to drive. Yet there is no test that magically shows that I'm not capable of driving in those cases.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this principle, but I'm not sure if it applies to this case. The woman showed a high blood alcohol level in a breath test, but didn't exhibit symptoms of drunkenness (according to the hospital). Is it possible that auto-brewery syndrome leads to high levels of alcohol in the breath, but not in the bloodstream?

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[radarskiy]

"as measured by your blood alcohol content."

She had been charged on the basis of a breathalyzer test. In a normal person there is a known relationship between breath alcohol level and blood alcohol level. This condition has clearly changed that relationship, since she blew nearly a 0.4 but was still conscious so it is implausible that the actual blood alcohol content was that high. What's funny is that the article never mentions any actual blood tests, only breathalyzer tests.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[sjames]

However, it can be argued that if you drink the cough medicine you SHOULD have known it would raise your BAC. That also covers the lame excuses of I lost track, or I felt OK (you should know alcohol makes you overestimate your abilities). A blind person certainly knows they're blind. This lady has a medical condition that very few even know exists.

There is a growing list of laws that claim struct liability, but I would say those are ethically questionable at best.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

DUI means driving while under the influence of alcohol as measured by your blood alcohol content. It is alcohol in your blood that impairs your ability to drive.

You seem to be one of those "if its tuesday, this must be belgium" kind of people, refusing to understand that you could be in a whole other country even though its tuesday.

Or one of those people looking on a gauge to see if a (water) tank is filled, and keep filling it while it is obviously overflowing, because the gauge shows its not full yet.

While there is a correlation for normal people (around the median of a bell curve) between blood-alcohol content and being unfit to drive, I can well imagine that someone who's "under the influence" constantly (and I mean that in time as well as blood-alcohol content) the body will adapt to it. Which is quite nicely illustrated by this woman: functioning normally with blood-alcohol levels that would be dangerous/lethal for the most of us.

Also, consider the people on the other side of the bell curve: the ones who will be intoxicated to the level of being incapable of driving a car straight after just a single glass of beer, but showing a blood-alcohol content way below what is considered the legal maximum ...

TL;DR: Blood alcohol content and functioning impairment are related, but does not have a direct link (the term "calibration is needed" comes to mind).

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no current cure. That doesn't mean that it's impossible for some cure to be discovered at some future time.
 
Are you stalking me? Talking about what I usually say, and posting to attack me without actually adding anything, other than asserting I'm wrong while not actually contradicting what I said.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no cure you dumb fuck.

Transplanting gut flora has worked well for other parts of the digestive system.
Why do you think that is so out of realm of what could be possible that it is justified to call someone names?

Sounds like you have some personal issues.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[MrL0G1C]

Driving tests don't test for alcohol or risk, being just about able to get behind the wheel and just about manage to get from a-b is not good enough, many US driving tests are nothing like as strict as the UK driving test. The woman should have been sobriety tested - reaction time, actual physical skill tests etc . Many alcoholics appear to function normally, should they too be allowed to drive?

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Hognoxious]

Epileptics are generally considered unfit to drive. But one could still pass the test if he didn't have a fit in the middle of it.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Hognoxious]

I'm surprised there was even a breath test. I thought in the US they used "roadside sobriety tests" which means you have to stand on one leg while rubbing your stomach and patting your head.

I can barely do any of those things on its own.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[sumdumass]

Whether he is or is not one of those people doesn't matter. The law doesn't currently make any exceptions for this and even implies that there isn't when others who have a high tolerance for alcohol show no signs of impairment but fail a breathalyzer test.

If the law says no exception, then it needs to be equally applied. If equally applying the law creates problems, it needs changed.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is that the article never mentions any actual blood tests, only breathalyzer tests.

Except that it does, which makes your +5 Informative rating funny.

Instead of allowing his wife to be released as the hospital recommended based on her lack of drunken symptoms, the husband asked for tests to be run. Sure enough, Marusak says, the results showed a blood alcohol level of 0.30, hours and hours after her last drink.

Re: Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because they don't have a medical condition that causes the standard to be inapplicable. The hospital does the testing you speak of. This isn't that freaking hard, next.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Agripa]

Roadside sobriety tests are used to establish probable cause. You generally are required to comply with a breathalyzer or blood test but not a roadside sobriety test.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

she didn't know it.. lol. i call bullshit, and kudos on finding a good lawyer to back it up. you dont go through life that long without realizing something is amiss and you feel drunk half the time. now get off the fucking road.. some of us are trying to drive. the bus stop is waaaaay --------> over there.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Damouze]

I would not be suprised if that were the case. As I already mentioned before, the breathalizer test acts on the premise that there is a known correlation between the amount of alcohol in somene's breath and the amount of alcohol in that person's blood.

Funny bit of trivia: there are baking ingredients like certain flavours that, if aersolized into the mouth, will skew that breathalizer test. You would not actually be intoxicated, but the test would show that you were.

From the first time I ever read about breathalizer tests and got into the little technical details of them I noticed that a good defense attorney would be able to defeat such a test easily, by simply questioning the validity of the assumptions about a correlation between the amount of alcohol in someone's breath and the amount of alcohol in his or her blood.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Damouze]

That goes for -all- strict liability laws.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Damouze]

I don't know how it is with a jury system (and whether that would apply at all in this case), but a good judge will know the law inside and out and will know how to apply good common sense while still adhering to the law.

Adhering to the law for the sake of the law is not applying good common sense.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[AthanasiusKircher]

What's funny is that the article never mentions any actual blood tests, only breathalyzer tests.

Except that it does, which makes your +5 Informative rating funny.

Instead of allowing his wife to be released as the hospital recommended based on her lack of drunken symptoms, the husband asked for tests to be run. Sure enough, Marusak says, the results showed a blood alcohol level of 0.30, hours and hours after her last drink.

I'm copying this post because it was posted by an AC, and it obviously shouldn't be lost to mods.

Come on mods -- seriously... I expect many posters here won't read TFA, but if you read a post that claims something isn't in TFA, take a few seconds and skim TFA to see that it's -- ya know -- actually TRUE before modding up as "Informative."

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Megane]

I was thinking that too, but "I hired two physician assistants and a person trained in Breathalyzers to watch her and take blood alcohol levels over a 12-hour period and had it run at the same lab used by the prosecution". So in the hospital she did have breath tests, and this may imply they apparently also drew blood. I'm pretty sure you don't use a lab for breath tests. But if they didn't actually draw blood, it could have been from alcohol in her digestive system that was far enough down that it couldn't be absorbed.

Not that the article is all that great to begin with because of the wonderful grammatical fail of "the hospital police took the woman to wanted to release her immediately". (Yes, that is from TFA!)

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, adhering to the law for the sake of the law is extremely important else you get laws not enforced against the good ol boys but hounded against others. Equal protection of the law also means equal enforcement of the laws otherwise you end up with crap laws where the difference between life or death and a slap on the wrist depends on who got murdered or what color someone's skin is.

Either the laws need to be equally enforced or they need to be changed to reflect the intention of enforcement. Plenty of people can be legally drunk but not showing or experiencing signs of intoxication. They do not get off in the same way.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article does not explicitly mention how the 'tests' requested by the husband were performed. They could have been breathalyzer tests (unlikely in a hospital setting, but not impossible).

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[AthanasiusKircher]

The article does not explicitly mention how the 'tests' requested by the husband were performed. They could have been breathalyzer tests (unlikely in a hospital setting, but not impossible).

Yes, and the article does not explicitly mention who took those 'tests' in the hospital either, or under what circumstances. They could have been breathalyzer tests administered by chimpanzees who were simultaneously juggling hamsters while jumping through flaming rings (unlikely in a hospital setting, but not impossible).

TFA didn't rule out the chimps, so I suppose that's justification for modding up the idea that no one at any point did an ACTUAL BAC test.

Seriously? The woman had a BAC that in many people could be near fatal. The husband doesn't believe it because it seems insane. Since breath tests are KNOWN to be quite inaccurate in a variety of circumstances, I can understand his skepticism.

And yet you assume the hospital staff just came in and did another breath test, which satisfied him? And on that basis the hospital staff diagnosed her with an exceptionally rare condition?

Or maybe, just maybe, the hospital did what would be standard procedure in such circumstances and actually checked the real BAC rather than relying on a test that is known to have problems.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[michelcolman]

Not that the article is all that great to begin with because of the wonderful grammatical fail of "the hospital police took the woman to wanted to release her immediately". (Yes, that is from TFA!)

It took me three attempts to read it correctly, so it's definitely poor style, but is it actually wrong?

The hospital wanted to release her immediately. Which hospital? The one to which the police took the woman.

Is this one of those "up with which I shall not put" moments?

Re: Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

But does a deaf person know they are black?

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally you don't produce that much alcohol in your gut. You will have felt it as a kid, and then you get tolerance of an alcoholic, so at the small quantities no effects that you can directly feel yourself.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

she should now lose her license

No, not this time, next time (if there is a next time) she should lose her license. Because it is possible for her to control her diet in a way that minimizes this condition. At least it is my understanding that that is possible. This is only the second time I've heard of this thing. The first time I'd heard about this was all about how the guy needs to be super careful what he eats.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

by simply questioning the validity of the assumptions about a correlation between the amount of alcohol in someone's breath and the amount of alcohol in his or her blood

Which is exactly why there is a blood test as a followup to a positive breath test in a lot of places - some places always, other places if the person involved does not accept the results of the test on the spot.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it can be argued that if you drink the cough medicine you SHOULD have known it would raise your BAC

As tested by breath and not by blood unless it's special Jack Daniel's brand cough medicine.
Cough medicine and similar skewing breath results due to there being ethanol in your mouth (or other things that register) is one of the reasons a lot of places follow up with a blood test.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people can eat hazelnuts without showing symptoms. If I were to eat hazelnuts I would be in no shape to drive. Yet there is no test that magically shows that I'm not capable of driving in those cases.

What do Hazelnuts do to you?

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

The woman showed a high blood alcohol level in a breath test, but didn't exhibit symptoms of drunkenness

Other than trying to drive all the way home with a flat tire.
If that wasn't because she was drunk, then it was because she was stupid, and ought to lose her license for being a moron.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Rockoon]

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of whatever-the-judge-feels.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how it is with a jury system (and whether that would apply at all in this case), but a good judge will know the law inside and out and will know how to apply good common sense while still adhering to the law.

Adhering to the law for the sake of the law is not applying good common sense.

I agree, but the judge could also have upheld the Guilty ruling and simply suspended all the penalties, sealed the conviction, with a condition allowing her record to be completely wiped if she satisfied conditions such as not driving until a medical professional determined her condition was under control or cured (if possible).

Maybe she has an medical condition, and maybe she's a closet drunk. Trying to drive home on a flat makes me think she knew damn well she was drunk and didn't want to get caught. And before anyone points to her tests in the hospital increasing without drinking, I'd just like to point out that the hand sanitizer in hospital rooms is made with alcohol. And yes, I've seen habitual drunks consume that shit to get a 'buzz' or stop the shakes. It'll fuck you up good.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in your latest view on this, the mods shouldn't just skim the article. They also should make a bunch of inferences based on knowledge of testing procedures and possible motivations of the involved parties.
Then they get to assign that ever-so-valuable mod point.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[sjames]

Yes, for things that confound the breathalyser, they do need to do a more reliable followup. I thought you meant when someone turns up a bottle of cough medicine.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[arth1]

Yes, adhering to the law for the sake of the law is extremely important else you get laws not enforced against the good ol boys but hounded against others. Equal protection of the law also means equal enforcement of the laws otherwise you end up with crap laws where the difference between life or death and a slap on the wrist depends on who got murdered or what color someone's skin is.

Either the laws need to be equally enforced or they need to be changed to reflect the intention of enforcement.

That's the inherent problem with the common law system, where once a judge interprets the law as meaning one specific thing, that becomes law, and the letter of the law rules.

In the civil law system, a previous interpretative ruling does not become law, and judges rule based on the intent of the law in regards to the case at hand. There is no presumption that previous rulings were clairvoyant and considered possibilities that had not yet occurred at the time of the ruling.

Re: Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

A good defense attorney would note that the police officer made copious notes of the demeanor and appearance of their client, the blood test done afterwards, and realize the Breathalyzer is but one part of the case.

Re: Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bubble o bill

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Damouze]

The law is not just the law.

There is the law and the intent behind that law.

Laws are made for specific purposes and with a specific intention in mind. Whether or not a law serves its specific purposes and whether or not it serves that intention are wholly dependant on its wording. If the wording is insufficiently clear as to the intent behind its purpose it can never be properly understood or interpreted by legal officers and scholars. If the wording leaves insufficient room for those legal professionals to apply it properly in all circumstances the law can never be effective.

For example, if a law is made against drunk driving, then that is the intent and purpose behind that law. If that law however is worded in such a fashion that it provides both minimum and maximum penalties, there is no room for the judge to do his work properly as a legal professional, because metaphorically speaking, his hands are tied. The law does not allow for cases that do not fit the intent behind it but do fit the criteria for the purpose that it was made to serve. A person whose (non-alcoholic) drink was spiked with GHB and who causes an accident for example would legally be guilty of drunk driving, but would not be responsible for his own actions. However, because of the way the law is worded, the judge would still either have to sanction him with the minimum sentence or find him not guilty. Of course, this example is wholly exaggerated, but hopefully it explains the dangers of strict liability laws and the concept of minimum sentences in legislation.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[shutdown -p now]

It is also an inherent problem with the civil law system, since this approach opens the possibility of unequal application of laws by a corrupt judiciary. Russia is one prominent example where courts have been abusing this of late.

Re: Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many woman each year are told they are pregnant when they in fact are not. Testing for pregnancy is looking for certain criteria that usually means one is pregnant, but other rare factors can cause same hormones or elevated levels (e.g. Cancer), doesn't mean there's actually a bun in the oven.

Don't you watch any of the umpteen medical TV shows that do this episode at least once?

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Hognoxious]

I would not be suprised if that were the case.

Can you propose a mechanism for how that would work?

Funny bit of trivia: there are baking ingredients like certain flavours that, if aersolized into the mouth, will skew that breathalizer test.

These flavours wouldn't happen to be solutions in ... alcohol ... would they? Do you regularly drive along the road sipping artificial lemon essence?

I noticed that a good defense attorney would be able to defeat such a test easily, by simply questioning the validity of the assumptions about a correlation between the amount of alcohol in someone's breath and the amount of alcohol in his or her blood.

I suspect it's been tried before, and thrown out as utter bollocks. In any case, in sensible place there is a followup blood test.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[AK Marc]

No, she should lose it now. She has an uncontrolled medical issue that impacts her driving. An untreated epileptic is banned from driving, as are other medical conditions, depending on jurisdiction. Once it's under control, she should be able to get her license with restrictions and a medical caveat on it, like epileptics, and if cured, she can move back to a regular license.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[KGIII]

I was a functional alcoholic for many, many years. It wasn't until a bit over three years ago when I quit. I literally drank every single day - sometimes for breakfast. It wasn't until I retired and had nothing to do that I was no longer the "functional" part. I was pretty sloppy for a bit. (I'll skip the gritty details. I've had a couple of drinks since - no more than two at a sitting and only a half dozen times or so.)

Anyhow, I drove, I worked, I went to meetings, I even drove big, heavy, and sometimes armed/armored vehicles at one point in my life - though I wasn't always drunk then but I often was. You'd have never known. Nobody really knew though my family probably could have guessed. I never had an OUI. I never wrecked a vehicle (though I did drive some into some really stupid places like the tops of mountains). I did everything a normal person would do - all while drunk. Exceedingly drunk at times.

The worst/best thing I ever learned about being drunk is that you can close one eye and no longer see double. This works while driving and all sorts of other things. I have no idea how I never killed anyone and, obviously, I no longer drive drunk. I realized I had to give up drinking or give up driving. After some serious thought, I gave up drinking because I love driving. I was gonna end up killing someone or myself. I woke up with a car out of gas, battery dead, and asleep on the couch. I have no idea where I had been and how I got home.

My luck had run out and I was going to end up in jail, dead, or the hospital. So, I quit. However, for the 40 or so years prior (I was a teen when I started drinking on a regular basis) you wouldn't have really noticed that I was drunk. After I retired it is like my brain realized it didn't have to function any more so that was no longer true. Eventually I caught on to what my brain was thinking and quit. Shitty too, 'cause I really like alcohol.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Lotana]

I woke up with a car out of gas, battery dead, and asleep on the couch.

I would be much more amazed to hear how you managed to get a car (which is out of gas and with a dead battery) through your door and onto a couch! :-)

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[wonkey_monkey]

Her blood alcohol level varies according to time of day and diet.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this (parent) up. It should be +5.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[jbmartin6]

This is why I prefer to use 'interesting'

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[T.E.D.]

DUI means driving while under the influence of alcohol as measured by your blood alcohol content. It is alcohol in your blood that impairs your ability to drive. It doesn't matter how it got there.

Except that, if you'd actually read the article (or god forbid, the summary), she showed absolutely no symptoms of it at all until it reached ~0.30, which would be enough to kill most of us

That's the part I'm really surprised nobody has brought up. The laws are written so that the offense is for alcohol in your bloodstream, but the breathalyzer test that is typically used to detect it actually measures alcohol in your breath. They tend to be related, but they aren't always (which is why we all get loads of spam offering ways to "beat" the breathalyzer). In this person's case the relation is completely different because of the condition. If they really want to know her blood-alcohol level, they'd have to take a blood sample.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[NormalVisual]

In a normal person there is a known relationship between breath alcohol level and blood alcohol level.

It's a *presumed* relationship, not a known one, and can be skewed by any number of variables. Plenty of cases based on Intoxylizer results in particular have been thrown out because CMI refuses to allow courts to know exactly what the assumptions made by the device are.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[KGIII]

What's more amazing is that it was asleep. :/

Sadly, English is my native language.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Cramer]

Even treated epileptics can be refused a license. The metric is not "medicine", but "when was your last seizure?" Driving is not a right; it's a privilege. As such, if you pose a danger to others you will be prohibited from driving.

Re:Isn't it still DUI?

[Cramer]

Or they (or their doctor(s)) don't report it. This happens all the time, actually. It's a Russian-roulette that someone ALWAYS loses. (and then we hear about "some guy crashes into tollbooth")

Auto-amphetamine/caffeine synthesis syndrome

[dimethylxanthine]

I want that!

The more important question

[Foxhoundz]

From the article:

Because she blew a blood alcohol level of nearly 0.40, police procedure is to take the accused to a hospital, as that level is considered extremely life-threatening.

Why would medical professionals knowingly release a patient despite the knowledge she had life-threatening levels of alcohol in their body? Assuming they didn't diagnose her of the auto-brewery syndrome right away, you would think they would at least keep her overnight for observation.

Re:The more important question

[dohzer]

But then she would have missed the epic party she was driving to!

Re:The more important question

[Anonymous Coward]

With the low levels required to get a DUI, I sincerely doubt that quadrupling that would be "life-threatening level..." for most people. Probably not safe for driving, but not a risk for your life in any immediate time frame, though a future case of cirrhosis might be on the books.

Re:The more important question

[Anonymous Coward]

That's incorrect.

DUI level BAC in most states if 0.08% BAC. 0.08 * 4 = 0.32%.

She actually had near a 0.4% BAC, and possibly even higher later on.
Wikipedia lists the following complications / symptoms of a 0.4-0.5% BAC as the following:
Severe central nervous system depression
Coma
Possibility of death
Breathing Impairment
Heart rate Impairment
Positional Alcohol Nystagmus
CAPTCHA = liquid

Re:The more important question

[radarskiy]

Note that this does not say they did a blood test with a blood alcohol content result of nearly 0.4. They did breath test that produced results that would correspond with a BAC of nearly 0.4 in a normal person. The entire point that this condition affects the relation between breath alcohol measurements and actual blood alcohol content.

Re:The more important question

[AthanasiusKircher]

Note that this does not say they did a blood test with a blood alcohol content result of nearly 0.4. They did breath test that produced results that would correspond with a BAC of nearly 0.4 in a normal person.

Actually, TFA says explicitly that they did a blood test at the hospital and it showed a level of 0.3.

The entire point that this condition affects the relation between breath alcohol measurements and actual blood alcohol content.

Citation needed. The blood test was administered hours after the breathalyzer, and TFA implies she had had at least some drink earlier... and even if not, blood alcohol levels presumably vary over time, even in people with this condition, since alcohol production is triggered by dietary intake.

Re:The more important question

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe they did a blood test, and it came up low, compared to the breath test?

Re:The more important question

[PPH]

That is not likely. The breath test works based on the alcohol that crosses the lungs' alveoli membrane from the bloodstream into the airway. Where would the high levels in her breath come from (unless she belched a load of ethanol vapors up from her intestines).

Re:The more important question

[radarskiy]

"TFA says explicitly that they did a blood test at the hospital"

The article says blood alcohol level, but never says drew blood. Any references to the test are either "she blew" or "a person trained in Breathalyzers". The result of a Breathalyzer test is still called blood alcohol level even though no blood has been directly tested.

Re:The more important question

[hankwang]

What would be physical mechanism behind the change in the relation between BAC and breath alcohol? Breath alcohol level should depend only on the temperature and the alcohol/water ratio in the lungs, which should be very close to the BAC.

Re:The more important question

[Attila Dimedici]

It also depends on the alcohol/water ratio in the mouth. For example, if you have had nothing to drink earlier in the day, but you take a shot just before taking a Breathalyzer you will blow a high BAC results. However, that being said, I am not sure how this condition would change the alcohol level in the mouth.

Cause

[cstacy]

This "auto-brewery syndrome" comes from overeating Twinkies, I suspect.

Re:Cause

[Black Parrot]

No, "acute intestinal blockage" comes from overeating Twinkies.

My father was a doctor and had a patient with this

[geopsychic]

back in WWII. The patient was an enlisted man who would get falling down drunk after drinking milk. In his case, antibiotics cleared it up.

She should have her license revoked

[iceco2]

Until such a time the condition can be dealt with.
If she was unaware and could not reasonably be expected to be aware of her condition she should not face criminal charges (even a DUI charge). But only this time.
As it seems she is not yet over her condition, she should not be allowed to drive at all until such a time it is demonstrated she is medically fit to drive. The article makes no mention of such a limitation, so it seems the judge thinks she can continue driving drunk on self brewed alcohol.

Re:She should have her license revoked

[Anonymous Coward]

The point you're missing is that due to her condition being part of her all her life her natural blood alcohol level is well above 0.00 like the rest of us. So for her she's not impaired by what would make most of us puke our guts out and be in a coma, because her body naturally adapted to it.

Much like I've had a fever of 108F at eight different times in my adult life, and I'm still conscious and ambulatory at that point; because my body naturally sits at just over 100F every day. So what would literally kill most people? That's just a very bad fever for me, where I start taking medications to bring the temperature down and go take a cold shower.

Some people are extreme edge cases on bell curves, and some people need to and can get medical waivers for exeptional items on their drivers license, it's just that simple.

- WolfWings, too damn lazy to login to /. in too damn many years

Re:She should have her license revoked

[Damouze]

The point you're missing is that due to her condition being part of her all her life her natural blood alcohol level is well above 0.00 like the rest of us. So for her she's not impaired by what would make most of us puke our guts out and be in a coma, because her body naturally adapted to it.

>

Actually, 0.00 is not the actual natural blood alcohol level. Ethanol is produced as part of the sugar metabolism, so there is always a tiny concentration of alcohol in everyone's blood and just like with this woman, that level will vary over the day. The difference is in the magnitude.

Re:She should have her license revoked

[Anonymous Coward]

OhMyFuck!!!!!

Please use your google-fu powers to find a more complete version of the story

Re:She should have her license revoked

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes no difference. The DUI laws are crystal clear that, if you blow above the limit, you are presumed to be impaired regardless of whether you actually are. There is no exception in the uniform DUI laws for medical conditions that may cause impairment. Impairment is impairment, and the statutory limit is the statutory limit.

In a society government by the rule of law, the law must be followed, and she should in fact lose her license. If you don't like the law, get it changed, but you must obey it until such time as you are successful.

Re:She should have her license revoked

[tepples]

If you don't like the law, get it changed

Would ways of doing so include suing employers for more bus-friendly hours on grounds that a requirement to drive would discriminate against her medical condition?

Re:She should have her license revoked

[Damouze]

In that case, maybe it is good that I am not a legal professional, because I would under virtually no circumstance follow or obey an unjust law. As a citizen, I believe it is even my duty to point them out to my peers and have them changed through the democratic process.

Re:She should have her license revoked

[WorBlux]

Presumptions in law can be challenged by the introduction of facts to the contrary. Additionally a jury cannot be compelled to accept such a presumption (juries being the last defence of the common sense in the courtroom.) And speaking of law there is additionally case law. "A violation of this section is one offense, which may be proven in different ways. A person's breath alcohol concentration may be probative of impairment under subsection (1), as well as proof of a violation of this section based solely on breath alcohol concentration pursuant to subsection (3). State v. Kubik, 235 Neb. 612, 456 N.W.2d 487 (1990)" The text of the first section of the local DUI law reads "(a) While under the influence of alcoholic liquor or of any drug;" Gives good reason to believe the true meaning of the statute relates only to the influence of external substances.

Assuming the woman really has the condition she claims to have, driving on a flat may still be considered negligent or careless driving, and the condition itself may be grounds to revoke her drivers licences.

I produce methane

[Tablizer]

...that's gotta get me out of something

Re:I produce methane

[Anonymous Coward]

...that's gotta get me out of something

contact with women.

Re:I produce methane

[Black Parrot]

Probably gets you out of a social life.

Re: This gets posted at least twice a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

And this promotion a getting wasted and driving will kill people. Will kill people.

Re:My father was a doctor and had a patient with t

[Tablizer]

So what happened if he drank alcohol? Did he go moo or something?

Oops, I mentioned cows on slashdot.

Well huh.

[Black Parrot]

Complain about SWAB, get a story about the poop chute instead.

Re:My father was a doctor and had a patient with t

[h33t l4x0r]

No, the milk acted like a smart drug for some reason. While drinking it regularly, he was considered out standing in his field.

Re: This gets posted at least twice a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only rwuce? No doze xian scum post this every month to provide an xcuze 4 dere dui habitz.

My grade school science teacher told us

[Anonymous Coward]

about this condition in the 1970's. Slow new day? Besides, why on slashdot, it has been on google news for the last few days?

Re: My grade school science teacher told us

[Anonymous Coward]

The news is getting dui charge dismissed because of said condition and circumstances of not knowing having said condition and having to prove it.

Re: This gets posted at least twice a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

That iz dey atz of those teapublicanz.

And, here we see the intelligence of the average person that dislikes the Tea Party.

Re: This gets posted at least twice a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is the way of their kind.

Re: This gets posted at least twice a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreedz

Life and fiction

[mi]

I seem to remember reading about a family, that could turn sugar into alcohol right in their blood. They would also hypnotize possums into making a fire and roasting themselves. They were capable of other feats too, mostly motivated by laziness, of course. Can't find the author now, though...

Re: This gets posted at least twice a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

More than 10k per year that they kill.

Re: This gets posted at least twice a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slash dot hates us.

Re: This gets posted at least twice a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

Howz do wez keepz dem from posting so oftenz. ?

Re: My father was a doctor and had a patient with

[Anonymous Coward]

Your dildo is slipping out, want me to shove it back in?

Re: This gets posted at least twice a year...

[Anonymous Coward]

This. So much this.

Execute her

[Anonymous Coward]

She's a living crime. She should not be allowed to exist.

Re:My father was a doctor and had a patient with t

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not their fault you are a retard.

Alcoholics

[Anonymous Coward]

No medical evidence, a Googling lawyer, apply Occam's Razor leads me to conclude gullible judge.

The primary piece of evidence for the defence is that she was not showing any signs, but this is very common in functioning alcoholics, who become consummate liars to cover up their addiction.

Symptoms

[Martin S.]

Alcoholics build up a tolerance with their body masking physical symptoms. They learn to cover up the bigger tells and become consummate liars.

Re:Symptoms

[KGIII]

and become consummate liars.

Or insufferable tellers of truth (as they see it). I love you man! You're such an asshole.

*sighs* I do miss a good drunken evening and then hearing the stories of my previous night. Eventually, they don't even bother you - you kind of eagerly look forward to finding out what mayhem you've caused, who you've pissed off, and finding out how much money you spent.

Alkoholism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from the legal stuff:

Does this mean she is at risk of being an alcoholic without any agency on her own part? Sure hope this sort of condition can be treated. Would really suck to be roped into alcoholism and its associated health problems by a stupid, dysfunctional gut flora.

If she was Moslem

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd execute her because alcohol.

For awhile, I thought she must be blessed

[meander]

Being pissed all the time!

Hmm, on second thoughts, what is better? 1) to be pissed all the time, or 2) to have drinks every now and then?

Sadly, probably a sign of growing up, I now prefer intermittent drinking. I enjoy it as a contrast to my normal days.

When younger, I can remember being boozed for days. Really, the fun is in the first few hours, or perhaps evening. Less fun after that, exponential decay.

So, I feel sorry for her. Weird.

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I can relate. My body synthesizes THC and it causes nothing but trouble.

No Exception in the Law

[Anonymous Coward]

These charges should not be dismissed, as there is no exception in the UMVC for "auto-brewery" syndrome, or any other medical condition for that matter.

The fact remains she blew 4 times the legal limit, which means she was DUI, period, end of story. There is no leeway in the law for things like this, and the intent of the legislators who wrote the law is clear - over the limit and you are statutory DUI, period.

It's like RIAA $150K/song suits

[tepples]

Exactly. Your presence on the road is itself considered "damages", much as with statutory damages for copyright infringement.

Legal Limits Are Crap

[ironicsky]

There is a huge problem with legal limits. The affects of alcohol are different for everyone. I've known grown men who could down a 40oz of Rye in an evening and still be standing, coherent and functional. I've also known average sized adult men that after 2 beers were slurring and drunk.

Alcohol affects everyone differently. The fact that her homeostasis is 4x the legal limit means her body has probably adapted to the constant presence of alcohol and she wouldn't have any of the symptoms of being drunk.

We need to find a better way to judge someone's ability to operate a vehicle other than the amount of chemicals in their blood.

Re:Legal Limits Are Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! we can judge someone's ability to operate a vehicle based on how many people they kill.

Re:Legal Limits Are Crap

[PPH]

Alcohol affects everyone differently.

Yes and no. Practice helps. People who drink a lot learn to compensate for impaired reaction times and can seem normal to the untrained eye. But the impairment, particularly as it affects involuntary muscle control, is quite predictable for a wide range of subjects.

You can drive more slowly, leave a greater following distance behind other traffic and stay in the left lane. But if something unexpected happens, your reactions are messed up, no matter how well you think you can hold your booze.

Re:Legal Limits Are Crap

[Improv]

Imperfection of a regime doesn't make it crap nor does it stop it from saving lives. Your concern might be reasonable if we can find a nice ideally-mechanical standard to replace it that's compellingly better given all possible concerns. Until then, cope.

They'll start screening for this at physicals

[tepples]

This woman should not take the blame for a medical condition that she did not know about.

On the other hand, in the age of government-subsidized health care, the government might argue that she "reasonably should have known" about it since her annual physical. Perhaps this case might be the excuse to pass a law requiring blood alcohol screening in the standard set of annual tests that insurers in the state must cover.

Re:They'll start screening for this at physicals

[KGIII]

Are you seriously arguing *for* government mandated, universal, blood and urine screens on the off chance that one person (out of very many) may have a medical condition? Seriously? I hope that I'm reading you wrong. It doesn't seem like your typical comment. :/

Re:They'll start screening for this at physicals

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously arguing *for* government mandated, universal, blood and urine screens on the off chance that one person (out of very many) may have a medical condition? Seriously? I hope that I'm reading you wrong. It doesn't seem like your typical comment. :/

Just in case you didn't know, we already have those for newborns. They have saved many lives over the years.

Re:They'll start screening for this at physicals

[KGIII]

Given that I used to date a midwife, I'm going to have to argue the mandated part.

Re:They'll start screening for this at physicals

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that I used to date a midwife, I'm going to have to argue the mandated part.

Well, given your presumptive age from what I recall you stating in other posts, it's possible that when you were dating her, PKU tests had not yet been developed, let alone all of the others that exist not, nor become part of the birth regimen, or if it was more recent, it is possible you simply never discussed it. I can imagine the subject not coming up quite easily.

However, what you will find today, is the requirement for a heel stick for a variety of disorders, also urine tests, and sometimes hearing checks. See also the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 if you want more information. Or check some state laws if you like. Since you said you lived in Maine, well, here's link to their booklet:

http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/population-health/mch/cshn/documents/pdf/mnbs-brochure.pdf

When a baby is born, a hospital, a midwife, they're required to perform the tests or get you to sign a statement that you are refusing it, and I don't know that every place allows such a waiver. Even if you had an unsupervised home birth, I would suspect there are provisions for checking whether or not you had the NBS done or not when you did try to get a birth certificate.

Beyond that, in the US, I just looked this up, the US Preventive Services Task Force's recommendations, if they are Grade A or B, your insurance has to cover it.

The same standard also applies to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC's recommendations. This seems to have been added as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but it may have been in effect in some jurisdictions already. Section 2713 if you want to look it up yourself. The only exception would be grandfathered plans, and not all of them even.

So basically, it seems that it is already the law, assuming the tests or immunization meets the standards of the aforementioned bodies, that your insurance does have to cover it. I don't know that it applies to this particular affliction, but the basic principle is already in effect.

Now what argument do you have?

Re:They'll start screening for this at physicals

[KGIII]

Two. Two arguments! Muahahah! (I am the count because I like to count things!!!)

Err...

1. There are exemptions. If there are exemptions it is not mandatory.
2. They don't appear* to test for drugs and alcohol as a general rule.

And, to be fancy-shmancy, even though they currently test for some things does that mean they should be even more invasive? Does that mean they should make a test for this mandatory for acquisition of a driver's license? I'm guessing you think so.

* Some of those words were big and I did not look up all States.

Re:They'll start screening for this at physicals

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Mandatory does not require such an absolute, merely being authoritative ordered is sufficient. It's mandatory, you either have the test performed, or you sign the waiver. One or the other. And for all I know, there are places that don't even let you have a waiver.

2. I didn't see the discussion related to drugs or alcohol screening, but as to the subject matter of this case, which was testing for a medical condition through blood and alcohol screens, which I was informing you about being already mandated for newborns. Blood and urine screens on the off chance that one person (out of very many) may have a medical condition is the exact and particular reason for these tests. The programs are of a long-standing nature, but I imagine most people outside the field take little to no notice of them at all, even at the birth of their children.

Should they test for more? Are they testing for too much? That's a continual discussion, with a lot of considerations being measured. I can't say that the heel stick is particularly invasive though, and well, the urine is hardly in short supply.

As for what you guess, you are in error. I would not even say it's worthwhile, unlike say, vision tests (these are mandatory for a driver's license where I live), as this problem is so uncommon and it can arise so spontaneously as it seems to arise from a pathogen so while for some it can be a long-term problem, for others it can come up suddenly. But I would note that this is a medical condition that, in fact, skewed the results of another test(sad tests often being mandatory themselves, depending on the circumstances). So if anything, a mandate for anyone performing these tests knowing about this syndrome would be desirable as it could be important in many cases to prevent problems from occurring. It might not be necessary every time, but they should know enough to consider it.

Re:My father was a doctor and had a patient with t

[Anonymous Coward]

In some people, their gut leaks proteins out into the bloodstream. Gluten and Dairy are common. Even Soy. Said proteins can bind to neural receptors, act like opiods. It's believed to be one of the (many) causes of autism.

Though if antibiotics cleared it up...

Less than 50 ppm rounds down

[tepples]

But does this "tiny concentration of alcohol in everyone's blood" exceed 0.0050 percent (50 ppm)? If not, then it rounds down to 0.00.

Re:Less than 50 ppm rounds down

[angel'o'sphere]

But does this "tiny concentration of alcohol in everyone's blood" exceed 0.0050 percent (50 ppm)? If not, then it rounds down to 0.00.
Actually in most if not all rounding systems it rounds up to 0.01. A no brainer ...

Re:Less than 50 ppm rounds down

[tepples]

Less than 50 ppm rounds down

Actually in most if not all rounding systems it rounds up to 0.01

Since when does 0.0049% round to 0.01%?

Re:Less than 50 ppm rounds down

[angel'o'sphere]

1) we talked about 0.005, not about 0.0049
2) Since when does 0.0049% round to 0.01%? When you start rounding at position 4 obviously. You round 0.0049 to 0.005 and round one further to 0.01. That is often done in math. I had plenty of math tests where the task was to start rounding at X+Y up to digit X. Anyway, that was not the issue here, or did I miss something?

Re:Less than 50 ppm rounds down

[tepples]

It is a statistical error to apply rounding multiple times to one number. If you have 0.0049, you round ONCE and get 0.00. Otherwise, you introduce a bias of about 5% of one ulp. It's like reencoding an image to JPEG multiple times: the errors accumulate.

My point is that there exist concentrations of a substance that are below the threshold of practical detection. And it was my hypothesis that natural sugar metabolism keeps BAC below 50 ppm (0.005 percent). If so, it won't show up above the error margin on breath or blood tests.

Americans with Disabilities Act is also the law

[tepples]

There is also a federal statute called the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.

Re:Americans with Disabilities Act is also the law

[Anonymous Coward]

The ADA is totally irrelevant to this situation.

Re:Americans with Disabilities Act is also the law

[tepples]

Say a lawful U.S. resident no longer qualifies for a driver's license because of auto-brewery syndrome. So instead, she plans to take the bus to and from work. But the bus doesn't run 24/7; it's closed at night, on Saturday evenings, and all day 58 days out of the year. (Source: fwcitilink.com) And her employer refuses to give her more bus-friendly hours, instead threatening to fire her.

I thought employers with at least 15 employees were required to accommodate an employee's disability. What am I missing?

This 'disease' is about as real

[Anonymous Coward]

as affluenza

Drunken Babies and a New Renewable Resource

[Anonymous Coward]

Could breast feeding be regarded as contributing to the delinquency of a child? ...or a frat boy?

I see a sci-fi plot here. On hearing one of those "wish my date would vanish and make a pizza appear" jokes, a scientist develops foods that cause people to produce alcohol-rich milk.

Is being treated like dairy is an improvement over being treated like meat??

Aircraft Carriers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aircraft Carriers.

And BTW, that WWII thing? You're still welcome.

Re:Aircraft Carriers.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're Russian?

Re:Aircraft Carriers.

[Anonymous Coward]

what for ? being late to the party due to selling to both sides?

But she was drinking

[tomhath]

She had four drinks that afternoon. Granted that shouldn't make her falling down drunk, but she was drinking and she was impaired.

Re:But she was drinking

[txmason]

She had four drinks that afternoon. Granted that shouldn't make her falling down drunk, but she was drinking and she was impaired.

Four drinks over six hours. That wouldn't make anyone falling down drunk.

does it really matter how she got drunk

[Locutus]

Driving Under the Influence means deciding to drive when you are impaired so why does it matter if she drank alcohol or drank some other liquid/food which turned to alcohol/etc to impair her judgement?

Re:does it really matter how she got drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

You said "deciding". Please think about what that word means and get back to us about how one decides to have a medical condition that none of her doctors knew about until after this incident.

FWIW, in the same vein I "decided" to have a nightmare last night.

Re:does it really matter how she got drunk

[Locutus]

so how does one go 20 or 30, or more, years with this and not know something is wrong? The testing the husband asked to have done stated that she would get wobbly at .30-.40 levels and when she was stopped and tested she blew a .40.

So it surprises me someone could go that long in life and not know or wonder or have checked what is going on. How did her husband and family not ask why she'd be "wobbly" after drinking so little or possibly not at all? I guess she/they can claim ignorance and that's enough to get you off the hook.

Now they( the DMV ) should know that she needs to have her drivers license pulled until she proves she's cured because not only does she get drunk after eating but she and those around her at too clueless to even know she's impaired.

we used to not use BAC

[Anonymous Coward]

But way back in the 60s.. they used observational techniques to determine if the driver was impaired. Those had some civil rights issues - standards were not uniformly applied.

so they came up with the idea of a technological solution. They asked the AMA for what BAC would correspond to being too drunk to drive, and they went oh 0.10 or 0.15, something like that (basically without much research to back it up), so 0.10 became the limit.

After that, it's been steadily ratcheted down by neoprohibitionists like the changed MADD.

Re:we used to not use BAC

[Sloppy]

After that, it's been steadily ratcheted down by neoprohibitionists

Please reach for Hanlon's Razor more often. You don't have to be a neoprohibitionist to lower the limit; simply being dumb is good enough. Combine a little dumbness with personal experience and you can form a strong opinion.

I am as far from a prohibitionist as you can get. I love beer. The house is full of beer and every time I drive out of state, I buy beer (oooh, Interstate Commerce!) just to try out products offered by different distributors. The closets are stuffed with aging barleywines.

And yet, I also know that I am definitely impaired before 0.08%. From my subjective point of view, the 0.08% standard is absurdly high. No, I wouldn't be swerving around at that point, but my reactions would be terrible and my judgement .. altered. If I were stupid and also in charge of setting policy, my personal experience would have me set the limit to 0.04%.

Luckily for society, I'm not in charge. But also, I'm not quite stupid enough to fail to realize that different people have different reactions. Again: what I'm saying is that stupidity would be enough, with prohibitionist agenda having jack shit to do with anything.

So you merely have to ask: do we have stupid people in legislatures? ;-) Because if we do, then it's likely there's your true explanation.

Re:we used to not use BAC

[BitZtream]

And yet, I also know that I am definitely impaired before 0.08%. From my subjective point of view, the 0.08% standard is absurdly high.

And yet I've blown .14 and passed the field sobriety tests (Wasn't driving!) so lets stop pretending that you have any clue what you're talking about, mmmmkay. .08 is two beers or less to most people who are fatasses, so unless you weigh 85 pounds or actually never drink beer, you're lying.

If you drink regularly (a beer or two every day) you'll also have somewhat of a tolerance until your liver/kidneys give out, at which point it'll be ugly for you, but thats another story.

The reality of it is, we have stupid legislatures because of people like you. You can hit 0.04 from swallowing too much mouth wash for fucks sake.

Re:we used to not use BAC

[david_thornley]

The thing about lowering the BAC limit is that it's one of those things that sound good, like the TSA. If someone disbands the TSA, and an aircraft is hijacked or blown up, suddenly that someone is politically responsible for the incident (or maybe not, this tends to vary). If someone raises the BAC limit, and someone between the old and new level is in an accident that kills a girl or young woman with blond hair and blue eyes (I don't know why this is the political trigger), that's going to be bad for whoever raised it. Lowering the limit doesn't have the same comparable risk.

Re:we used to not use BAC

[Sloppy]

I will grant that your reading comprehension is shockingly below average, but if you were as stupid as you say you are, you wouldn't be able to communicate it so directly. Show, don't tell.

Your only refuge would have been satire, but when satire lacks humor or insight, the hopeful smiles turn to disappointed sighs. That's not even good craft. C'mon, man!

Here's how I would fix your post, to make it better. I am not an expert writer by any stretch of the imagination; I merely assert that I am your better. So learn:

And yet I had 100 people blow .14 and 101 of them passed the field sobriety tests, so let's stop pretending you have any clue what you're talking about. Since we all know that everyone is identical, that means you're lying if you say your reactions are noticeably substandard at 0.04%.
 
And even if you were slower-than-sober at that point, so what? You know how everyone is always saying the roads never have any surprises ("Another day, another complete lack of people-who-don't-give-a-fuck-about-their-own-lives darting into the street on that charming block that has both a methadone clinic and healthcare-for-the-homeless clinic(*)") and no other drivers are bad ("I just want to say, yet again, nobody drifted into my lane why they were on their phone. Why do I even still bother to pay attention to all the other cars? Everyone is so well-behaved!")? That lack of there ever being any hazards is why slow reactions don't matter, you lying moron.

The reality is, we have stupid legislators because of people like you, who explicitly said they would not enact a BAC limit based on their personal experience due to the fact that they know different people have different performance at different BAC, and if I had paid attention to what I was ranting at, I would have at least lampshaded (**) that fact.

Don't you see how that would have been a better way to say the exact same shit-for-brain nonsense that you said? This isn't even fancy and I'm sure you could do just as well, if you tried. But you didn't. So the question is: dude, what went wrong?

(*) This is a real place on my commute to work every day. It's awesome but in my fantasy, that same magic stretch of street would also have a 1970s style porn theater, a plasma donation center, a casino, and a sausage factory with a secret tunnel to a nearby funeral parlor. "Hey, why is the sausage factory always receiving shipments of sandbags? Their sausages don't taste like sand at all."

(**) tvtropes link included out of spite. I hope I just made your life shorter.

She could become drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet she could become drunk while at the wheel. I agree--she's too dangerous to drive even if it's not her fault for the DUI.

She doesn't brew. Headline is typical BS

[RubberDogBone]

Brewing is what people do to beer and coffee and perhaps other thing.

Her body makes alcohol. It is MAKING alcohol, not brewing beer, nor coffee or anything else.

   

Large bowel?

[kevinking.psyd]

Is there such a thing as large and small bowel or are these just different words for large and small intestine? A brief googling seems to suggest the latter. The summary mentions a fermentation process in the large bowel that generates energy. My understanding is that the large intestine does little more than adjust the water content. Anyone know whats the truth here?

Dang!

[Anonymous Coward]

For many decades there have been stories of "spontaneous combustion" of humans.

With the lower combustion point of alcohol this woman's story might lead to the answer of humans "spontaneous combustion" and thus solve a long standing issue.

In the USA the Occupational Safety and Health Administration would "Gal Dang" want to know of the humans, ie USA citizens, who have the ability to manufacture alcohol in their bodies!

Just think of it for a minute!

Back on September 11, 2001, three groups of Saudi (mostly) and Egyptian (few) homeless men commandeered three commercial airliner aircraft from different locations from New Jersey and New York airports.

And!, having three humans whose bodies can manufacture alcohol placed in the New York Trade Center Tower One and Tower Two and one in the Pentagon, Virginia, the Government of Saudi Arabia was in position to render GOD's HELL FIRE on the citizens of the United States of America on September 11, 2001, those citizen who the SAUDI GOVERNMENT hates with a vengeance! even more than their hatred of the Persians of Iran.

Question: Do the "Emaciates" of Saudi Arabia and the "Emaciates" Iran deserve an Adolph Hitler to comfort their sexual desires?

Answer: No need to speak! I better be quiet! "Run Deep, Run Silent"!

Ha ha

burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble ;-)

Devil's advocacy

[tepples]

Are you seriously arguing *for* government mandated [screenings for] a medical condition? Seriously?

I was more predicting that others will likely argue for it. Occasionally arguing positions that one does not favor keeps discussion from collapsing into an echo chamber.

Re:Devil's advocacy

[Anonymous Coward]

That was what I was hoping. I'm usually a pretty good judge of character and you post frequently enough to at least get a good indication of your core beliefs. I was actually a little surprised, no - very surprised. "Err, that's not tepples?!? WTF? Is he drunk or is he trying to make someone say something?"

As I recall, I even made a noise that I can't quite put to text - it means I'm a bit curious/confused. If this was the post (and I think it was) the missus looked at me curiously but declined to ask and I didn't bother explaining.

I've seen enough of your posts, over the many years now, to think it was very, very out of character. I'm also usually pretty good at getting a read on people and it struck me as odd that I could be so wrong about that - and that's a pretty big "that" to be wrong about.

Thanks for reassuring me that you're not a draconian authoritarian tyrant and that I'm not insane! Also, sorry if I spoiled your attempt to fish for a debate (not the same as trolling) and I may be guilty of doing the same thing from time to time. It's always good to be able and willing to defend your beliefs with logic and reason so long as one is open to changing one's mind when new conclusions are reached due to new information. At least now I know you've not been taken over by aliens who are controlling your thoughts and making you type strange things into the keyboard. I was worried for a minute!

Ha! I just hit the 50 post mark. So, I can wait until tomorrow and post this then or I can post this as an AC. Given that it's painfully obvious who this is, I'll post this as an AC. Such an arbitrary limit... I've got the max karma rating, I've been here for years, I used to pay to support the site, and I'm limited to 50 posts - at a time when the site is lacking content and participation. I don't get it... I really don't.

But, thanks for making that clear for me. Again, that's what I expected but I'm kind of relieved to find out for sure. I am easily confused.

-KGIII

Shocking news!

[whitroth]

Who's ever heard of such a condition...oh, other than all the boomers who saw the sixties tv show about father and son lawyers in practice together, and the father defended a guy who had it. He got the judge's ok, and had him eating crackers in the courtroom, and proved, by the time he called him up, that he was drunk.

                      mark