Driver refused drug test because he was rushing to his sick mother: court decision

The Lutsk City District Court of Volyn region found the driver guilty of refusing to undergo a medical examination for drug intoxication and emphasized that such refusal constitutes an independent administrative offense under part 1 of article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. At the same time, for holding the person accountable, it does not matter whether the fact of the driver's intoxication was established.

In court, the driver explained that he refused to go to the medical facility because he was rushing home to his mother, who is a person with a disability of group II and suffers from epileptic seizures. In his opinion, he acted in a state of extreme necessity. However, the court concluded that the defense did not prove the existence of a real and immediate danger that would justify refusal to undergo the examination.

The court also rejected the defense's arguments about the illegality of stopping the vehicle, noting that the vehicle had a crack on the windshield, which gave the police lawful grounds to stop it.

As a result of the case consideration, the court imposed a fine of 17,000 UAH on the driver with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for one year.

Circumstances of the case

The court established that on May 8, 2026, in Lutsk, police stopped a BMW 520 due to a crack on the windshield. During communication with the driver, law enforcement officers detected signs which, according to the Instruction on the procedure for detecting signs of intoxication in drivers, could indicate drug intoxication, in particular constricted pupils that did not react to light. Therefore, the driver was offered to undergo a medical examination at a healthcare facility, but he refused.

At the court hearing, the driver did not admit guilt. He claimed that the police stopped his vehicle without grounds, and he refused the examination only because he was rushing home to his mother, who, according to him, required constant care due to her health condition. The defense attorney requested to close the proceedings, citing the illegality of the vehicle stop and inadmissibility of the collected evidence.

Why the court rejected the defense arguments

The court noted that according to clause 2.5 of the Traffic Rules, a driver is obliged, upon a lawful request of a police officer, to undergo a medical examination if there are grounds to believe that he is intoxicated.

After examining the case materials, the court found that the police acted in accordance with the law. The signs recorded corresponded to signs of drug intoxication as defined by the Instruction. The refusal to undergo the medical examination was recorded using body cameras, which complies with the requirements of article 266 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

Regarding the legality of stopping the vehicle, the court noted that from the video recording and other case materials 161/10663/26, the presence of a crack on the windshield is evident, which the driver himself acknowledged. The court pointed out that DSTU 3649:2010 does not allow cracks in the area of the windshield wipers, and obvious signs of technical malfunction of the vehicle according to article 35 of the Law "On the National Police" are grounds for its stop. Therefore, the court found the defense's arguments about the illegality of the stop unfounded.

What the court said about the state of extreme necessity

The court analyzed the driver's references to articles 17 and 18 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which provide for exemption from administrative liability in case of actions committed in a state of extreme necessity.

The ruling states that such a state exists only in the presence of a real, not imaginary, danger that cannot be eliminated by other means.

The court found that the defense did not provide evidence that on the day of the incident there was a real threat to the life or health of the driver's mother. The driver himself explained that she did not seek medical help that day and he did not receive any notifications about her condition worsening. Moreover, from the extract of the expert team's decision on assessing the person's daily functioning provided to the court, it appears that the mother was not determined to need constant external care. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that there are no grounds to consider the driver's actions as committed in a state of extreme necessity.

Key legal conclusion of the court

The court emphasized that in this case, the person was held administratively liable not for driving under the influence of drugs, but for refusing to undergo a medical examination offered according to the procedure established by law.

Such refusal constitutes an independent administrative offense under part 1 of article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Therefore, the driver's explanation about the unproven state of intoxication cannot be grounds for exemption from liability, since the offense in this case is precisely the refusal to undergo the examination.

Court decision

The Lutsk City District Court of Volyn region found the driver guilty under part 1 of article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and imposed an administrative penalty in the form of a fine of 17,000 UAH with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for one year. In addition, 665.60 UAH court fee was collected from him. The ruling may be appealed to the Volyn Court of Appeal within ten days from the date of its issuance.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.