What happened?
A remarkable incident in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug has the feel of a modern legal drama. The events began late at night when a driver accidentally mounted a high curb and became stuck, a situation that could befall anyone. Observant citizens reported the occurrence to the traffic police, suggesting impairment as a possible factor. Initially, it seemed there were no victims and no obvious problems, yet the concern over safe driving prompted authorities to investigate.
The first response came from a traffic police inspector who conducted a standard check. Alcohol abstinence was confirmed, but the inspector did not stop there and ordered the driver to be taken to a hospital for further examination. In the hospital, doctors found no clinical signs of intoxication. Yet, the tests revealed traces of gabapentin and nimesulide in the driver’s urine, substances typically prescribed for nerve pain and inflammatory conditions respectively.
And the gray area!
Gabapentin is a medication used to address seizures and neuropathic pain, while nimesulide is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug employed for acute pain and osteoarthritis. On the surface, these details might suggest the driver had chronic pain requiring ongoing treatment. Despite this, an administrative protocol was opened under Part 1 of Article 12.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and the case was forwarded to the court for consideration.
Initially, a justice of the peace paused the proceedings, ruling that the chemical-toxicological examination had not been performed according to required standards. The finding implied that without a precise measurement of how much of the drugs was present, it would be impossible to determine their impact on the driver’s condition. Nevertheless, the ruling was later overturned by a higher authority, and the driver was eventually found guilty despite medical assessments showing no ethyl alcohol, narcotics, or psychotropic substances in the body, and despite the legal status of gabapentin and nimesulide not aligning with intoxication rules.
Advocacy on the driver’s behalf argued that the matter fell into a legal gray zone because drug substances that do not contain alcohol, narcotics, or psychotropic components can still influence alertness and reaction times. The court noted that the existing legislation did not provide an explicit, exhaustive list of substances that could trigger intoxication, creating ambiguity in enforcement. As a result, the proceedings were paused to seek guidance from higher constitutional authorities, signaling a new frontier in how such cases are interpreted.
So, how does this situation evolve? It highlights a legal gray zone that focuses on substance effects rather than traditional definitions of intoxication, prompting debate over regulatory clarity rather than mere wording.
What has the Constitutional Court decided?
- It ruled that the note to Article 12.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses contains a constitutional flaw because it allows administrative liability for drivers who test positive for substances not classified as ethyl alcohol, narcotics, or psychotropic drugs but that can still impair attention and reaction. This creates ambiguous interpretations and inconsistent applications in road traffic offenses.
- It urged the State Duma to address this safeguard by closing the identified loophole with timely legislative action.
- It established that driving after consuming substances not involving alcohol, narcotics, or psychotropic ingredients should not automatically lead to liability under Articles 12.8 and 12.27, paragraph three, until the necessary amendments are enacted.
What does this mean for drivers?
Until the Code of Administrative Offenses is amended, liability for drunk driving will predominantly apply to cases involving high levels of ethyl alcohol and the presence of narcotics or psychotropic substances. If tests show other compounds capable of impairing performance, charging someone with drunkenness remains legally unresolved until explicit rules are clarified. In the cited case, the driver was released with the license restored, yet the discussion around responsibility for certain drugs persists as the legal framework undergoes refinement.
Some practical implications include: the possibility that the most common reasons for license suspension will continue to center on alcohol or controlled substances, while other substances may require further legal elaboration. Observers note that the outcome underscores a broader need for precise regulation around newly acknowledged substances and their effects on driving ability.
- Examples of scenarios that could trigger disputes over license eligibility are frequently discussed in contemporary road safety debates.
- Updates on road safety and regulatory changes are sometimes highlighted in national discussions and public channels.
Vote – win Lada!
Public participation is invited in a poll titled Behind the Wheel, aimed at recognizing standout car innovations of the year. Participants can contribute their views on the latest automotive trends and help shape perceptions of driving technology and safety features.
As a token of appreciation for taking part, a prize draw will be conducted among respondents who complete the questionnaire by the stated deadline. The opportunity is open to all readers who participate within the specified timeframe.
COMPLETE THE 2023 DRIVING GRAND PRIX QUESTIONNAIRE
“}