Section 169A of the Traffic Regulations states:
"Alcohol concentration in the body" – the concentration of alcohol in a sample of exhaled air or in a blood sample, which exceeds one of the following, as the case may be:
(1) 240 micrograms of alcohol in a liter of exhaled air;
(2) 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood."
Section 169B prohibits driving a vehicle while intoxicated:
"169B. (a) A person shall not drive a vehicle on a road or in a public place and shall not drive a vehicle if he is intoxicated.
(b) The owner of a vehicle or his supervisor shall not allow a drunk person to drive it.
(c) For the purposes of sections 62(3) or 64B of the Ordinance and this chapter, a person shall be deemed to be intoxicated if he is under the influence of intoxicating or dangerous drugs or if the concentration of alcohol in him exceeds the prescribed level."
- As detailed above, in a breathalyzer test performed on the defendant after the incident, it was found that the alcohol concentration in one liter of exhaled air was 474 micrograms per liter of exhaled air, which is a concentration that exceeds the threshold set in the Traffic Regulations.
In addition, a blood test performed on the defendant revealed that metabolic products of the active ingredient in cannabis, as well as THC, which is the active ingredient in cannabis, were found in his blood.
Hence, at the time of the incident, the defendant was driving the vehicle under the influence of both alcohol and cannabis, and therefore, he should be convicted of the offenses attributed to him in this context.
Impeachment in Investigation
- Section 245(a) The Penal Law provides as follows:
"245. (a) Anyone who motivates, or attempts to motivate, a person who, during a lawful interrogation, fails to give a statement or gives a false statement, or retracts a statement he has given, shall be sentenced to five years' imprisonment."
As mentioned, after the incident, the defendant hurried to leave the scene in the car, drove to his home and asked his sister Kristina to tell the police investigators that she was driving the car at the time of the incident. Immediately afterwards, the defendant returned to the scene together with Kristina, who told Policewoman Noya Chelia Chervo, who was at the scene, that Kristina was present at the time of the incident (see the testimony of Policewoman Noya and her statement to the police P/20A). However, a short time later, Kristina retracted her statement and told the police investigators the truth.