0

Or while being prescribed desoxyn by a doctor, Is there a limit of methamphetamine in one's system that can allow one to drive and not be charged with driving while impaired, in the state of Minnesota? Kind of like .08 for alcohol. And or if it is not impairing judgment .

  • 1
    Could edit your question to clarify what you mean by "meth" please? Methylated spirits? Methamphetamine? At the same time, it would be good to expand the abbreviations dui and mn - not everyone here is US based - and to fix "one" to "ones" and "on" to "one". Also, what does this have to do with the us-constitution? I would remove that tag. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Oct 22 at 12:13
  • 3
    @MartinBonner: In the US, "meth" is a standard shorthand for "methamphetamine". I have never heard it used to mean anything else. I have edited the question. – Nate Eldredge Oct 22 at 12:26
  • 1
    OP: “Kind of like 0.08” for alcohol is not completely correct anyway. See the link in the (excellent) answer by @Nate Eldredge. For alcohol it is under the influence of alcohol (1) or having 0.08 (5). So 0.08 and you seem “fine” is still a crime. Driving erratically and 0.06 is also a crime. It is just that 0.08 itself is a crime. Lower than that and they need other evidence of being impaired (like field sobriety test). – Damila Oct 22 at 14:06
  • How can they say you are impaired even if it has been 5 days since last use or more and levels are 10,000ppm? – jail Oct 22 at 14:13
  • 3
    In a legal context, "impaired" means whatever the law says it means, regardless of whether or not you are "impaired" in the common sense of the word. (By the way, if your blood level of methamphetamine is 10,000ppm you will be dead: 10 ppm is considered lethal. Being dead will certainly impair your ability to drive.) – Nate Eldredge Oct 22 at 14:22
9

Assuming you mean methamphetamine, then the answer is no. It is illegal to drive with any amount of methamphetamine in one's body.

The main Minnesota law on driving while impaired (DWI) is Section 169A.20 subdivision 1:

It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, except for motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when: [...]

(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols.

The schedules of controlled substances are at Section 152.02. Methamphetamine is listed in Schedule II (subd. 3 (d) (3)).

However, there is an exception if you were taking the substance as a prescription. Section 169A.49 subd. 2:

If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it is an affirmative defense to a violation of section 169A.20, subdivision 1, clause (7) (presence of Schedule I or II controlled substance), that the defendant used the controlled substance according to the terms of a prescription issued for the defendant in accordance with sections 152.11 and 152.12.

Note that since this is an affirmative defense, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that you had a prescription, and that you were using the substance according to its terms (e.g. taking only the prescribed dose). In particular, if your doctor or pharmacist told you not to drive while taking it, then that would seem to say that you were not using the substance as prescribed.

  • Before the edit with the affirmative defense, I was a little surprised it was just a blanket rule. CII amphetamines are commonly prescribed meds for attention deficit disorder. I'd rather those with ADD/ADHD be medicated while driving, both for improved attention control, but also for curbing the impulsiveness. – Mr.Mindor Oct 22 at 14:26
  • Is there any loop hole on them statues being charged with 4° DUI and getting test refusal and not having a sample then charged with 3°DUI aggravated and having a sample for methamphetamine. But never been convicted of the 4 degree yet.? – jail Oct 22 at 14:27
  • 5
    @jail: I don't know. If this is a real-life situation then you need to ask your lawyer instead of relying on random people from the Internet (I am definitely not a lawyer). – Nate Eldredge Oct 22 at 14:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.