From the Rapid City Journal in Rapid City, South Dakota
A South Dakota man has been charged with ingesting an inhalant and is facing two additional counts of driving while under the influence in connection to a May 2009 incident that necessitated police involvement. According to police documents, the suspect was stopped by officers “after a citizen reported seeing him drive erratically.” Upon a thorough search of the suspect’s vehicle, officers discovered a can of aerosol computer duster in the back seat- prompting them to administer field sobriety tests on the premise.
As the suspect prepares for trial later this month a surprising revelation has surfaced. The presiding judge has limited police testimony in the case, prohibiting officers from disclosing any details related to the suspect’s bodily responses elicited during field sobriety exams. Specifically, police will be unable to testify about how the suspect’s “eyes responded during testing” (a key test used to conclude the suspect was intoxicated) even though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that “eye movement in a sober individual is different than eye responses from an intoxicated individual.”
In a statement released to the public last Friday, Circuit Court Judge A.P. Fuller explained his decision- believing there to be no scientific evidence available to prove that such an inhalant produces intoxication. Stating, “there’s no science, like on alcohol or on cocaine or opiates or all of the other things that you can ingest that has science behind it…nobody is going to testify until the state can come in and establish the scientific basis for those conclusions.” It seems the suspect’s fate lies in the hands of the jury, as they will determine whether or not he was legally intoxicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment