Sandlin v. State

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 a 6 is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds with regard to the prescription drug alprazolam, and, Love v. State, 271 Ga. 398 1999, does not require a showing that the defendant was legally authorized to use alprazolam.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After a jury trial, Jason Allen Sandlin was acquitted of driving under the influence of drugs to the extent that he was less safe,1 and was convicted of driving under the influence of a controlled substance2 and failure to maintain lane. Sandlin was also charged with, and pled nolo contendere to, possession of marijuana. On appeal, Sandlin argues that the trial court committed three errors: 1 it denied his motion to suppress; 2 it overruled his demurrer challenging the constitutionality of OCGA § 40-6-391 a 6; and 3 it entered a judgment of conviction on the violation of OCGA § 40-6-391 a 6. Because this case is governed by Love v. State ,3 which held that OCGA § 40-6-391 a 6 was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds, we reverse Sandlin’s conviction on this charge. 1. The record shows that David Golz, a forensic toxicologist employed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, testified that Sandlin’s blood contained metabolites of marijuana and alprazolam, which is commonly referred to as xanax. Golz testified that alprazolam, a Schedule IV drug,4 is a controlled substance that acts as central nervous system depressant, and is only available through prescription.

OCGA § 40-3-391 a 6 provides that a person with any amount of marijuana or a controlled substance in his or her urine or blood can be convicted of driving under the influence. Under OCGA § 40-6-391 b, however, a person who legally uses a controlled substance can only be convicted of DUI if that person “is rendered incapable of driving safely as a result of using a drug other than alcohol which such person is legally entitled to use.”5 Therefore, Sandlin maintains that the statute denies him equal protection under the law because it disparately treats legal and illegal users of alprazolam.

Sandlin v. State

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 a 6 is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds with regard to the prescription drug alprazolam, and, Love v. State, 271 Ga. 398 1999, does not require a showing that the defendant was legally authorized to use alprazolam.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report