Citation

Scheffler U, Halecker DM. Blutalkohol 2004; 41(5): 422-433.

Affiliation

Scheffler, U., Eur.-Univ. Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Lehrst. Strafrecht, S./K., 15230 Frankfurt (Oder), Germany

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, International Committee on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety and Bund gegen Alkohol und Drogen im Straßenverkehr, Publisher Steintor Verlag)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The article deals with the problems related with proof of drug related dangerous driving according to (section) 316 StGB. Given the practical considerations, the understandable tendency to introduce an absolute threshold value for drug related dangerous driving is being analysed critically. Using alcohol related absolute driving inability as an example, the consequences of criminal action such as exclusion of counterevidence is emphasised as well as its compatibility with the principles of assessment of judicial evidence according to (section) 261 StPO being checked. The result justifies serious doubts over the dogmatic legal legitimacy of the so-called 1.1 per mille threshold. Contrary to the belief of the judicature this threshold value is not based on a scientific fact but on a probability, which is not a legally binding value for a court of law. Hence the exclusion of proof against suspected dangerous driving from 1.1(per mille) cannot be justified. Therefore, in cases of drug related dangerous driving, the introduction of absolute threshold values based on probability is not encouraged. Proof of alcohol or drug related dangerous driving should be a combination of assessment of evidence of blood alcohol/drug concentration at the time of the incident, the behaviour of the driver at the time of the vehicle being stopped and a medical examination report.