Opinion ID: 2072861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: The question posed in this case is whether a driver can be prosecuted under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3) for driving while intoxicated while under the influence of a drug or other unlisted substance. The People argue that subdivision 3 includes the voluntary use of any substance or agent that can render a person intoxicated. Defendant asserts that intoxication under this statute applies only to alcohol. The legislative history of the statute and its scheme reveal that the Legislature's intent has been to treat a driver's use of alcohol differently from a driver's use of drugs, and that the prohibition of driving while intoxicated under subdivision 3 of section 1192 is part of the strategy to prevent the drinking driver from using the roadways. Section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is entitled: Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The law provides: 1. Driving while ability impaired. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol. 2. Driving while intoxicated; per se. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has.08 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood as shown by chemical analysis of such person's blood, breath, urine or saliva, made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of this article. 2-a. Aggravated driving while intoxicated; per se. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while such person has .18 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in such person's blood as shown by chemical analysis of such person's blood, breath, urine or saliva made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of this article. 3. Driving while intoxicated. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. 4. Driving while ability impaired by drugs. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such a motor vehicle is impaired by the use of a drug as defined in this chapter. 4-a. Driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs. No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs.... 9. Conviction of a different charge. A driver may be convicted of a violation of subdivision one, two or three of this section, notwithstanding that the charge laid before the court alleged a violation of subdivision two or three of this section.... Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-a, in the same chapterchapter 71 of the Consolidated Lawsas section 1192, provides: The term `drug' when used in this chapter, means and includes any substance listed in section thirty-three hundred six of the public health law. Public Health Law § 3306 is an extensive schedule of controlled substances. Neither difluoroethane nor the more general hydrocarbon is on the list and, therefore, defendant in this case could not have been charged under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4). [2] A violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (1) is a traffic infraction; violations of subdivisions 2 through 4-a are misdemeanors. The Court's primary goal is to interpret a statute by determining, and implementing, the Legislature's intent. Analysis begins with the language of the statute itself. Next, in construing a statute, the courts frequently follow the course of legislation on the subject, the lineage of the act being thought to illuminate the intent of the legislature (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 124, at 255; see Matter of Tompkins County Support Collection Unit v Chamberlin, 99 NY2d 328, 335 [2003]; Riley v County of Broome, 95 NY2d 455, 463 [2000]). The Court additionally looks to the purposes underlying the legislative scheme ( see Sheehy v Big Flats Community Day, 73 NY2d 629, 634 [1989]). That method is particularly apt in this case in which the Legislature itself, over the course of the century, has repeatedly refined the statute as society has evolved, science has progressed and new problems have emerged.