Jurisprudence over the offense of driving under the influence of drugs SAP-MU 39/2015 crime of driving under the influence of drugs and witness statements IB 117/14 SAP- driving offense under the influence of drugs and analytical SAP-IB 117/14 Judgment Hearing about the symptoms of poisoning by drugs and driving: “The Board indeed considers that the case of the prosecution appears feasible primarily because it would explain the accident, but also of the defense and at least similar or identical probability. We say this because if the defendant had ingested cocaine and other substances such as amphetamines and methamphetamines and cannabis these have stimulating effects and non-depressants body and yet the state of the accused It was not characteristic of these substances, but the contrary. I was dejected, decentralized and instability is also important to note that leaf symptoms does not correspond to the person of the accused, if not with the other individual identified by another name and DNI with different data and possibly another driver who was stopped that morning or the night before (the Judging attributed the defect to a mere mistake in the name but not the symptoms); and the most important thing to note is that just after one hour and fifteen minutes from the accident the defendant to medical examination revealed no signs apparently normal symptoms of being poisoned. In any case, the accused had drugs typically produce consumed in the subject the consumer excitement, waking, hyperactivity and euphoric effects. However the attitude of the driver was the opposite.

The driver of the other vehicle was not strict when it comes to describing the state of the accused, he simply said that he felt something strange, but nothing prevents that was due to his nervousness, knowing he had consumed drugs or have suffered very fact an accident or front-lateral collision that finished out of bed after a weekend in which he had consumed stale and variety of substances. With all that to the extent feasible while the accident was because the defendant was under the influence of drugs, as it was due to a different reason, such as a distraction or drowsiness and the defendant although used drugs that previous intake could take place the night of Saturday to Sunday and not Sunday night and that would explain the results of the analytical results have yielded positive, but that was not affected by that consumer, since the elimination of the drug in the body lasts for several days, although their effects disappear after a certain time and even after sleep and rest for several hours, as they had declared the defendant and his then partner sentimental, why the doctor who explored the accused when shooting analytical urine for no perceived symptoms consistent with a consumption immediately the accident drug to the duality of probabilities and both being equally possible and with the same legal vitality, there is no other conclusion than the issuance of an acquittal under the principle in dubious pro reo. ”