Ambien CR DWI

[atcsteve]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

My 19 year-old son was pulled over last week on suspicion of DWI. He was given a field sobriety test and the officer failed him. He was forced to submit to a blood test, even though he asked for a breath test. Ok...I understand in Texas that police officers are allowed to do that. He was also never read his Miranda rights, which I thought they were required to give any time they detained a person. He gave the blood sample and spent several hours in jail until he could be arraigned. He and his girlfriend both SWEAR that they hadn't had a single drop of alcohol, but my son says he had taken two Ambien CR tabs the night before (his girlfriend's prescription) due to the fact that he couldn't sleep because of his severe allergies. By "the night before," he indicated that it had been about 24 hours since he had taken them.

Does the blood test for DWI test for the active ingredient in Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), and if it does, would his body have metabolized it to the point where it would be either undetectable or below the DWI cutoff? Should he be worried? The police and the DA won't release the results, if they have them.

We haven't retained an attorney yet, but were mulling over the implications of not getting one since he is so sure the blood test will come back 0.0 for alcohol, but this Ambien issue is definitely giving us pause.

Thanks in advance for any advice.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[Silverplum]

Originally Posted by atcsteve

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

My 19 year-old son was pulled over last week on suspicion of DWI. He was given a field sobriety test and the officer failed him. He was forced to submit to a blood test, even though he asked for a breath test. Ok...I understand in Texas that police officers are allowed to do that. He was also never read his Miranda rights, which I thought they were required to give any time they detained a person. He gave the blood sample and spent several hours in jail until he could be arraigned. He and his girlfriend both SWEAR that they hadn't had a single drop of alcohol, but my son says he had taken two Ambien CR tabs the night before (his girlfriend's prescription) due to the fact that he couldn't sleep because of his severe allergies. By "the night before," he indicated that it had been about 24 hours since he had taken them.

Does the blood test for DWI test for the active ingredient in Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), and if it does, would his body have metabolized it to the point where it would be either undetectable or below the DWI cutoff? Should he be worried? The police and the DA won't release the results, if they have them.

We haven't retained an attorney yet, but were mulling over the implications of not getting one since he is so sure the blood test will come back 0.0 for alcohol, but this Ambien issue is definitely giving us pause.

Thanks in advance for any advice.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Here's a helpful link on the Miranda topic:
[url]http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-miranda/when-miranda-required.html[/url]

[mike_lee]

I seriously doubt they'll find ambian in his blood unless he told them to look for it, if there is a positive it will be for benzos. I take ambian regularly and I had a work ordered drug test 10-11 hours after taking it and nothing showed up.

[RatPackLar]

If what you say from what he told you, why did they have to FST him and blood test him? I mean if we was clean and sober, they would not have stopped him. They would not have FST tested him, and it never would have gotten to a blood draw.

Tolerance
Some states have ZERO Tolerance laws for minors, which MEANS, MINORS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY BOOZE OR DRUGS IN THEIR SYSTEMS PERIOD. The pot deal usually burns them, as pot can stay in the system for 30 t0 60 days, and the metabolites of pot usually hang them. You really need to talk to your lawyer, and reserach the law of your state. Texas, from what I have seen, is a hang em high and hang them hard state.

The Ambien dance has also been played out on these boards. The bottom line is, on the side of the bottle, it does warn about amongst other things, operating vehicles or heavy machinery. It is a drug, it can impair, your kid took it, and drove, and then you tell us, it was his girlfriends drugs, so he should not have taken then at all, period, yet he did.

The fact that your son, took pills from somebody, and his name was not on the perscription is another problem, you now admit to. That alone will put the credibility of your MINOR son in question.

The kid can swear all he wants, they always do, but there was a reason for the stop, to begin with, why was he stopped?

A kid, a minor, who takes other peoples drugs and then drives, is not gonna get much sympathy from the system.

If he can lie and do that, what else is he lying about. Well only the blood test will tell, I would not be surprised if they find booze, and the POT Metabolites in that sample, and if they do, your kid is in for a world of hurt.

I do not judge here, but you need to look at this, as the outside court system will. Think like the system, not like a victim here. If you can, you will be in a far better position to deal with this.

You are in for one hell of a ride. Get a lawer, and ask, but also, do some research on your one, just so you know, what you might be in for. The more you know, the better off you be able, to deal with the system, and your lawyer. I wish you well.

[mike_lee]

When kids use ambian recreationally they snort it, that's very difficult to find. We all know it's possible the boy didn't tell mom the whole truth.

[BigMistakeFl]

What did he say about the FST's? How was it that he failed these tests, since he was not impaired?

[atcsteve]

Thanks, everybody.

Yes, the boy is quite capable of lying. Maybe it's genetic; if I had time to tell the whoppers I told MY dad....

Whether I misunderstood what he meant by "the night before" or he changed his story I'm not sure, but in a subsequent conversation he told me that it had only actually been a few hours since he had taken them when he was pulled over (about 2 a.m.), for stopping past the "stop line" at an intersection. He said he had done part of the FST barefoot and had stepped off the line, but otherwise he couldn't think of a reason why he failed.

Anyway, given the amount of time between the time he took the Ambien and the time he was pulled over, it's entirely possible, maybe even probable, that he WAS impaired. Now that I have this knowledge, I am inclined to let him sort this out on his own.

I'm getting conflicting information from the net on whether they test for Ambien or not. Does anyone know if they test for it here in Texas? And what are the implications for him assuming he IS charged with a DUI (whether or not they do test for it) if I don't retain an attorney for him? He could never afford one on his own....is it just a matter of the severity of the punishment he gets, or is there something else here that I'm missing?

Thanks again.

[Ozark_Sophist]

Need to get after son about taking medications prescribed to someone else. Depending on the medication, possibilty exists for felony weight.

Evidently, your son disclosed to the police he took prescription meds and drove under the influence of them. Something like, "Sorry, I didn't maintain lane. I took two ambien earlier."

[RatPackLar]

So the allergies and the sleep story, was a lie, and he did not take them the night before. You did not misunderstand, the kid lied to you. The night before and two hours before are two quite distinctive separate elements of time placement. Agan, get the police report, you can do that.

Then ask your questions. If you know the kid has the potential to lie, then you really cannot trust anything he tells you about this. If you cannot do that, you really cannot get the proper advice you seek, cause your basic premise is faulty, aka, the kid could still be lying.

You cannot even get an attorney to really help you, if you really do not know what actually went down. What did he tell the cops? Did he mention the Ambien?, you really do not know. You may lie to dad, you do not lie to your Lawyer, when his job, is to give the best possible defense.

How much evidence do they have to prove he was imparied? He must have done something to tip them off, and he must have failed the FST's to have them arrest him, when he had no booze in this system. Again he already lied to you so you really cannot trust anything he says on this.

What made them think, they had enough to arrest him for DUI?

Not saying they are right here, but you really need to see the actual police report on this, to make sure you know all of the story on this one.

I remember a line from Back To School with Rodney D. Rod talking to his son.

Hey you do not lie to me

You lie to girls

You do not lie to your dad.

Yea kids play games with parents, but then this type of thing goes down, that is not the time to lie to dad, as he is the one guy who might be able to pull the kid and his butt, out of harms way.

That police report, will at least give you the version the cops are working off of, to potentially convict your son, and give the lawer, an honest snapshot, of what he or she, may be up against.

Food for thought, and the kitchen is always open.

Good luck!

[Ajosin]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

What did he say about the FST's? How was it that he failed these tests, since he was not impaired?

Failing the test does not mean that you are impaired (a study found that 46% of sober people fail*). On the other hand, if you are impaired you will fail.

*From: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_Sobriety_Test#Field_sobriety_tests[/url]
FSTs are more effective at determining the level of impairment than they are at estimating the driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC). However, studies question whether the tests increase the officer's ability to judge either. In 1991, Dr. Spurgeon Cole of Clemson University conducted a study on the accuracy of FSTs. His staff videotaped individuals performing six common field sobriety tests, then showed the tapes to 14 police officers and asked them to decide whether the suspects had "had too much to drink and drive". The blood-alcohol concentration of each of the 21 DUI subjects was .00, unknown to the officers. The result: the officers gave their opinion that 46% of these innocent people were too drunk to be able drive. This study showed the possible inaccuracy of FSTs. Cole and Nowaczyk, "Field Sobriety Tests: Are they Designed for Failure?", 79 Perceptual and Motor Skills Journal 99 (1994).

[BigMistakeFl]

The OP was asked a simple question, more details about how the FST's were taken and failed. The point was that there was much of the story missing.

[Ajosin]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

The OP was asked a simple question, more details about how the FST's were taken and failed. The point was that there was much of the story missing.

Ok. Details about the FST would be interesting. However, if the standard chemical test is negative this case should be fought. The lawyer should have two strong points,

1) High false positive rate of the FST means the prosecution needs more evidence.
2) If blood-test is negative and they bring up the prescription drug self-implicating testimony of the defendant, the lawyer can argue that the failure of the prosecution to test for the drug specifically constitutes failure to establish proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not a lawyer, so take my advice for what it is worth (not much).