There is a fascinating DWI case out of New York involving a case of a 35-year-old school teacher who was arrested after driving with a flat tire and a blood alcohol content of .33 g/dL. Judge Walter L. Rooth dismissed misdemeanor charges of DWI and aggravated DWI after agreeing with the defense that the woman has the rare condition known as auto-brewery syndrome, where her body turns ordinary food and beverages into alcohol in a person’s body like a brewery.
This is not some new “Twinkie defense” or cunning defense tactic. This syndrome has been well documented and addressed in other cases and in other countries.
The rare intestinal disorder is caused by a saturation of yeast in the system of some people (which is why it is also called “gut fermentation syndrome”). Notably, the woman admitted to having three drinks that day with her parents in Buffalo but that would not have been enough to register such a high BAC. The police insist that she appeared incredibly intoxicated and registered the level on a Breathalyzer. Indeed, witnesses called police because of a car “weaving all over” the road. She could not recite the alphabet or perform other sobriety tests. The police officer said that he could smell the burning rubber from the tires. The prosecutors are appealing the ruling.
Notably, it was her defense attorney who sent her for tests because the confirmed drinks would not have yielded this BAC. It reportedly required 40 hours of work and about $7,000 on medical evidence to prove the condition.
Even if this condition is accepted, however, there remains the question of whether such people should be given licenses if they cannot detect a “flare” of the syndrome. After all, if she is still functioning as if drunk, she is still driving under the influence of alcohol. Her voluntary act may not have been consuming the requisite amount of alcohol but driving in such a condition. Clearly, a person may not intend to do so if such “flares” occur without warning. Moreover, if she was not previously diagnosed, she would have had no reason to know. In such a case, I am okay with the ruling but there must still be a determination on her ability to drive. It may be a good news/bad news situation. The good news is that the charges were dropped. The bad news is that the defense itself may mean that she cannot drive absent some medical corrective intervention.
What do you think?
Source: Buffalo News
Not being personally responsible sure seems like an affluenza defense.
The essence of the criminal offense is that you have to be intoxicated due to your voluntary consumption of alcohol. So in the Cary Grant/North by Northwest scenario, you have an impaired or intoxicated driver, but no crime. Same result here.
Maybe her license should be administratively revoked, but there’s no crime here. People who are dwelling on her “poor judgment” or “poor choices” are missing the point.
Great job by her attorney.
How did she get through college without eating or drunk?
Personal responsibility is dead. That is thanks to pandering liberals and their largest financial political contributors, attorneys.
Nick, you’re so far off on this one. She’s not guilty of a criminal offense, because to be guilty of it requires her to have been intoxicated because of her voluntary consumption of alcohol. This isn’t rocket science.
There is only one issue at play here, the responsibility of the driver. If the driver was aware of the possibility of the combination of food, alcohol, and her condition then her driving was a reckless and dangerous act. There are laws, or should be, to punish people for driving and causing accidents or simply being out of control due to fatigue, distraction, or any other reason. When one operates a motor vehicle their only concern must be safety.
If the driver was previously unaware, then she is now and should be responsible for her condition. If a person suffers from any driving impairment condition they are responsible for addressing it. Imagine a narcoleptic falling asleep at 80 mph while listening to Brahms.
It seems highly unlikely that she was unaware of her condition. Proving the condition is not the issue. Proving that she was aware of it or unaware of it is the issue.
You are seriously advocating more laws to punish people for more things? Seriously?
After being diagnosed she would be fully responsible for the choices she makes. Some people can’t drink a glass of wine without being impaired. Don’t take away her license, just treat her like any other person getting behind the wheel intoxicated.
If she’s not intoxicated due to her voluntary consumption of alcohol, she’s different from “any other person getting behind the wheel intoxicated” and must be treated differently. Sheesh.
I am wondering about the implications of this condition beyond the driving issue. Most, if not all employers, prohibit intoxicated persons from working in their businesses. Typically an intoxicated person is promptly fired. If an individual has this medical condition, how does an employer reconcile their treatment of that employee with the requirements of the ADA?
The thoughts of Sen. Ted Kennedy after killing Mary Jo in car accident 1969.
Put faith in GOD. And have a damn good legal defense team.
I’m skeptical.
Get her one of those self driving cars. If it wrecks blame it on the manufacturer back in China or the controller of the device up on Cloud 9. As to the medical problem, it can be cured. It is certain foods which incite the process. Bar her from eating those foods.
A very interesting case
The Science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
Perhaps an ignition interlock device should be required to be installed in her vehicle, which would prevent her car from starting if she is suffering from an elevated BAC?
I would think you would have to wear a medical alert bracelet.
Darren
How many cases are you expecting? It’s alleged to be a rare intestinal disorder. According to JT, this syndrome has been well-documented in other cases around the world.
Also known as Candida Albicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_%28fungus%29
http://www.naturalnews.com/candida.html
Systemic yeast is NOT a rare condition at all. I had it, my daughter had it and many many people are walking around with it but most doctors are too ignorant of it to even test for it. It’s also called The Drunk Disease. It took me 18 months to get rid of it using a very strict no sugar, low carb diet and taking handfuls of herbs, intestinal cleansers, colloidal silver, etc. It’s often caused by being over prescribed antibiotics which kill friendly bacteria in the gut allowing yeast to grow unchecked. The main symptoms are gas and bloating after eating sugar or carbs, but because it affects your entire body in so many ways, symptoms can be treated for years and years without ever knowing the true cause of all the misery.
Yeast feeds on sugar and when yeast dies, ethanol is produced. My daughter was able to eliminate hers in 3 months using natural methods (she got it from me through breast milk) but it kept coming back…years later. Finally we put her on an anti fungal drug.
It strikes me as being highly irresponsible for this grown woman to use this as a defense. An adult should know if they’re incapacitated regardless of the cause!
Like most people who have the problem, she didn’t even know until it was diagnosed. Beyond that, she’s not guilty of the criminal offense charged, the judge is right and the prosecutors are wrong to appeal.
I believe the state will have to establish sufficient medical evidence to preclude persons afflicted with this condition from driving before licenses can be suspended or denied. One case at this stage I suspect will not be enough at this point.
If the “saturation of yeast” in her gut is alleged to be the culprit in inducing her intoxication, isn’t it possible for one to simply avoid those foods and/or drinks which trigger the reaction and remain sober? If not, isn’t there something that she could ingest to neutralize the anticipated effects and avoid the state of intoxication all together? I suppose that the bigger question has got to be how this person, afflicted with this condition, has managed to function in society, for the past 35 years, as a school teacher? I suppose that no one noticed her perpetual state of stupor. While I truly sympathize with her obvious problem, one thing is definite: due to the test results, she has now been put on notice regarding her susceptibility to becoming intoxicated based upon what she ingests. If diet and medicine are incapable of controlling her intoxication, her license to operate a vehicle should be revoked. She is clearly a danger to herself and to others on the road. A BAC of .33 is off the charts.
Agreed, she shouldn’t be considered a criminal because of a medical condition. But she is still an impaired driver. If there’s no way to counteract it or to know when an episode is coming on, then her license should be revoked; she’ll be a menace on the road. Speaking as one who rides the bus, it’s not the end of the world and it’s better than losing control of your car.
Wow, getting drunk on the food you eat sure beats having to buy alcohol, probably cheaper too. Some people have all the luck.