Hey, there! Log in / Register

Not yet illegal to huff canned air while behind the wheel, court rules

The Massachusetts Appeals Court today overturned a man's conviction for operating under the influence of a controlled substance because the difluoroethane propellant in the can of compressed air he was observed huffing while in his running car in Malden is not on a state list of prohibited substances.

However, the court did uphold Manuel Sosa's conviction for negligent driving because he rolled through a stop sign, appeared passed out while behind the wheel of his car when it was stopped but still running, "the defendant's vehicle sped off down the street, abruptly starting and stopping repeatedly," he failed to comply with a police officer's requests - and seemed unable to do so - and that two people did see him huffing the aerosol can while driving.

The court noted that when a passerby saw Sosa apparently passed out behind the wheel of his car, he knocked on the window. Sosa then woke up, took a hit off a can of computer-cleaner canned air, then drove off.

When police Officer Philip Halloran arrived, he approached the vehicle, which was parked in the middle of a two-way street and had its engine running. Officer Halloran could see that the defendant was reclined in his seat behind the steering wheel. He saw the defendant reach down and place an aerosol canister to his mouth and spray.

Prosecutors said the difluoroethane listed on the two cans of compressed air Sosa was found with is the equivalent of ethylene fluoride. The court said that is not listed in a state law that lists proscribed substances - and that, in fact,in 1971, the legislature removed ethylene as a controlled substance - not that prosecutors proved that difluoroethane is the same as ethylene, the court said.

[A]t trial the Commonwealth offered no evidence that difluoroethane, the chemical that was contained in the canister
from which the defendant was inhaling, was the chemical equivalent of ethylene fluoride, or that either of those substances qualify as "glue" or any other prohibited substance defined in the statute. The judgment of operating under the influence of drugs is therefore reversed.

The court noted the legislature could fix this if it wanted.

Neighborhoods: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

That actually explains everything I see every day on the road. Real life rarely provides such simple explanations.

up
Voting closed 0

of course not this is MA...

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://www.tradenote.net/images/users/000/211/143/120606.jpg)

IMAGE(http://www.fireengineering.com/content/dam/fe/online-articles/2012/08/Bachmann-03.jpg)

up
Voting closed 0

have raised this point at the original trial? Oh right, it's only prosecutors who have to be absolutely picture perfect in presenting their case the first time around. Defense attorneys can be as sloppy as they like and are allowed to get 'do overs' nearly every time.

up
Voting closed 0

N/M

up
Voting closed 0

That's the way it works.

And you really think people should be convicted for doing things that aren't actually crimes?

up
Voting closed 0

Driving while impaired is legal? Where, only in MA?

up
Voting closed 0

No, it's illegal, that's why the court upheld the conviction for negligent driving. They couldn't ALSO convict him of driving under the influence of drugs because the substance he was on didn't meet the definition of drugs. The court got this one right, it seems.

up
Voting closed 0

It might answer a lot of your questions.

up
Voting closed 0

Is there a law? Basically, driving when you should know your alertness or judgment is greatly impaired (from alcohol, drugs, huffing, sleep deprivation, injury, extreme emotion, etc.).

up
Voting closed 0

If youre injured or sleep deprived you are possibly not in a position to diagnose yourself as impaired.

up
Voting closed 0

Drunks are too drunk and incompetent to evaluate themselves as too drunk and incompetent.

up
Voting closed 0

They did uphold the other conviction: "negligent operation of a motor vehicle".

up
Voting closed 0

When I read this post an Amazon ad comes up for discounts on computer-cleaner canned air.

up
Voting closed 0

They should have charged him with operating a motor vehicle while being an asshat.
(Is that a crime)

up
Voting closed 0

n/t

up
Voting closed 0