If someone's drink was spiked (with alcohol) could the victim get off a drink drive charge?

Question

Legal question - I am interested in the theoretical ramifications for the victim

Answer 1

No. First, how could not know. If it was only one drink you wouldn't be over the limit. If it was several drinks you would feel the effects. If it was drugs you would feel the effects. You would pull over, call a cab, or sleep it off. If your over, your over and generally screwed, unless the feds make errors, then you can get off, but they lie, so you probably won't.

Answer 2

Theoretically, yes, but it would depend on whether you were looking at an 'over the limit' charge or a 'driving whilst unfit' one.

If the charge is that you were driving with excess alcohol in your bloodstream / breath / urine and you could show sufficient evidence that this was as the result of your drink being maliciously spiked, then you would have a good defence.

On the other hand, if you were charged with being unfit to drive through drink then you would have a job on. If you're 'unfit' then you're staggering all over the place and unsteady on your feet - so you should realise there's something wrong and therefore not drive.

Everybody's 'unfitness' level varies according to age, sex, weight, time of meal etc, but if you're drunk, you're drunk, no matter what the actual amount of alcohol in your body is.

Best solution - don't drink and drive. It isn't worth it when you consider the results - death and destruction on the roads.

Say what you like about speed killing - but you cannot argue with the statistics on drinking, driving and death.

I know - I've scraped too many people up from car crashes, told too many grieving relatives and seen too many youngsters on mortuary slabs EVER to drink and drive myself.

Take care, stay safe.

Answer 3

The answer is NO. Drink driving is an absolute offence. All that is needed here is evidence that you were over the leagl limit. Absolute charges do not require a reason. People could say 'yes, I was drunk but I didn't mean to be!' It could be argued that you ignored obvious effects of unknown alcohol consumption. You would have had to consume quite a lot of spiked drinks. However, if you can provide evidence of spiking then the Magistrates will take that in to account when sentencing you.

Answer 4

Hi KJH,

In UK Law the simple answer is yes, If someone commits an offence but were not aware that an offence was being committed then they are not guilty. Spiked drinks are a classic example.

Another example would be, if you go into a shop and are given what you are led to believe is a free sample and you are then arrested for stealing the item when you leave the shop, there is a defence of honest mistake.

It is a matter for the courts to decide if the "victim" was acting honestly. This should not be confused with someone saying that they were not aware of the law regarding the offence.

Hope this helps

Answer 5

If you are caught driving with excess alcohol in your bloodstream and all the tests bear this out, then you have no option but to plead guilty to having driven with excess alcohol, as this is a strict liability offence and the law is aimed at preventing people whose faculties are impaired by alcohol from being on the roads at all. However, there is a possibility of arguing special reasons for not being disqualified from driving. As you can imagine, this is a difficult argument to substantiate unless your so-called pals (the ones who were mean enough to do it to you) are prepared to come to court and give convincing evidence to this effect. Of course, the prosecutor will want to know how it was that you failed to notice that there was something odd about your drink and how it was that your companions were able to sneak spirits into your glass without your noticing, especially as you were, according to your account of things, completely unintoxicated at the time. Theoretically the possibility of establishing special reasons is there, but it is on the whole unlikely to succeed. And it has no effect on the hefty fine you will have to pay.

Answer 6

Ignorance does not constitute innocence. Burden of proof is on the driver. You are supposed to be in control of your life and whate you eat and drink. I have never had any type of alcoholice beverage that I didnt smell or taste the alcohol. Be a tough arguement. However, having said that, OUI and DUI cases are more often than not plea bargained or thrown out because they are tough to defend as well and no 2 judges ever has the same opinion.

Answer 7

Theroretically speaking, you take that into the court room and the judge will add ten years to the sentence! I thought I'd heard them all but you definitely take the cake! Besides the fact, ignorance is not a viable defense, one spiked drink doesn't constitute drunk driving! It takes much more and anyone with taste buds would have known from the first sip!!!

Answer 8

If you could prove you were spiked maybe but if you really had been spiked you probably wouldn't even have been able to get in the car let alone drive it. If one of your friends spiked your coke with a double vodka I'd say you are still gonna get done for dd & I'd just batter your friend for being a dick

Answer 9

I would think that even if your drink is spiked, wouldn't you KNOW you felt somewhat drunk? There's no way you'd be able to escape that feeling, especially if it is bad enough to make you get pulled over for drunk driving. So I personally think that no matter whether you are a victim or not, you are still ultimately the one who decided to get behind the wheel.

Answer 10

You probably could if you could prove without a doubt that your drink was spiked. You would have to have witnesses to the event and they would calculate exactly how much drink you had had. Definitely would be a form of defence.