Police: Driver high on marijuana hits, kills pedestrian in Vancouver
»Play Video
Update: "Charges dropped against driver in fatal Vancouver crash"
Original story:
VANCOUVER, Wash. – A driver who hit and killed a man in Vancouver Monday night admitted to police that he smoked marijuana before the crash, police said.
Witnesses said the man stepped from a median into traffic before the crash. Police said he was carrying a grocery bag.
The crash happened at 5:50 p.m. near the intersection of Anderson Road and East Mill Plain Boulevard, police said.
The driver, 47-year-old Scotty R. Rowles (pictured at right in a 2007 Multnomah County booking photo for a probation violation), was arrested for investigation of driving under the influence of marijuana. Police said he stayed at the scene after the crash.
The victim has not been identified.
A Rowles family member who spoke with KATU News said Rowles admitted to officers that he smoked pot earlier in the day, but said he was not impaired at the time of the crash.
Washington's new marijuana law states that a if there is 5 or more nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood in the body, a person can be considered impaired.
Vancouver defense attorney Andrew Wheeler is worried about that part of the law.
"There's less known about the absorption of marijuana into a person's system," Wheeler said. "It gives a driver less foreseeability."
Washington State troopers are feeling their way around the state's new law.
"We're looking for impairment," said Trooper Will Finn. "We're looking to get impaired drivers off the road. How impaired is a person with five nanograms of THC in their system? It's hard to say."
Results of Rowles' blood test won't be available for some time.
If i get as much as a broken toe or a broken fingernail from a person on pot while driving  I will sue the State of Washington for putting this stupid law on the books. It will be for millions of dollars from the citizens . Thats what we need a bunch of pot heads driving!!
 @hotrod45
Â
Emotional statement, you say that as if Pot Smokers never existed before the new law.
What if the person's already "slow"?
At least he won't get charged with any drug charge, only for killing the ped. Got to protect the druggies you know.
Â
Marijuana slows your reflexes. So you are at least relaxed when you kill someone.
This is sad but could've happened whether pot was legal or not. And the pedistrian was obviously crossing where he wasn't supposed to.
 @Anarchy Yeah. Let's blame the pedestrian for some idiot who smokes pot and drives. Would comment be the same if the driver was drunk?
@Zanshin @Anarchy   Yeah it would. I mean he's still going to get charged with dui (or whatever they wish to call it.) But it appears the pedestrian is the cause of the accident. Just because someone is impaired doesn't mean they are the cause of an accident. Frankly, I don't think marijuana is the issue here. I think it's the media looking for an incident to get a little attention because of the new laws.
 @Upgrayedd  @Zanshin They can try to make it look bad and twist it around but we won out and nothing should detract from that. We need to take this re-affirmed power and use it now.
 @Upgrayedd  @Zanshin "I think it's the media looking for an incident to get a little attention because of the new laws." Tit for Tat, let it always be a reminder of what happens when "We the people". =)
Why is the name of this driver published, but not the SPD officers names who got arrested for dui?
That's what happens when you "step from a median into traffic."
Â
Â
 @lakeview Yes...but if it happens when the driver is not impaired, and they are able to react and stop or swerve in time, it could have a much different - less lethal - result.
That's why it could be a shared responsibility.
 @OrcasThunder I agree. There are so few accidents caused by drivers high on marijuana though. My gut tells me that the accident was unavoidable, but the driver will still face severe punishment. Bottom line: he shouldn't have been driving high.Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Eddie_G  @lakeview How can anything be contributed to pot when the effect on impairment is unknown? Any claim that Marijuana played a role in any death is pure speculation. To be clear, you could have what is considered a gross amount of pot in your system but the proof that this amount actually impairs a person is NOT there. No test currently known can speculate how much a person could handle. After twenty years of smoking you would be happy at know how little it effects a person, would the test reflect this? And when does this process begin? After the first time? the first year? Pot blood tests,unlike blood alcohol tests, do NOT have the luxury of being well established, tested and proven over time. I think a lot more information is needed on this subject and i hope you are happy to know that it's all being figured out now. I stress patience whether you are pro or anti pot.
 @Eddie_G  @lakeview "source: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death"
Â
That's one side - obviously pro-pot.
Â
Here's the other side:
"The researchers estimated that at least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana.
The researchers concluded that the risk of being responsible for a fatal crash increased as the blood concentration of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, increased. Even small amounts of marijuana could double the chance of a driver suffering an accident, researchers said, and larger doses could more than triple the risk.
The number of highway deaths contributed the smoking pot were significant, even though they were dwarfed by the number caused by drinking alcohol. Of the drivers involved in fatal accidents, 21.4 percent tested positive for alcohol consumption. Alcohol was estimated to be responsible for 28.6 percent of all fatal highway accidents.
The French research found that 2.9 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes tested positive for both marijuana and alcohol. Men were more often involved in fatal crashes than women and were more often tested positive for both marijuana and alcohol."
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/pot_driving.htm
Both clearly slanted in one direction or the other.
But at least mine is actually related to the subject at hand, driving while using pot.
 @Eddie_G  @lakeview Those are direct causes of death TO THE INDIVIDUAL who died - NOT even close to the cause of the accident that kills someone.
When there is a fatal DUI where someone is killed by the collision, the cause of death is trauma due to motor vehicle collision...not "due to some other person drinking and driving"...
 @OrcasThunder  @lakeview Here's your stats:
Cause of death (Data from 2009 unless otherwise noted)1 Number All Causes 2,437,163 Diseases of Heart 599,413 Malignant Neoplasms 567,628 Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 137,353 Cerebrovascular Diseases 128,842 Lack of Health Insurance3 (2005) 44,789 Poisoning 41,592 Drug-Induced2 39,147 Intentional Self-Harm (Suicide) 36,909 Septicemia 35,639 Motor Vehicle Accidents 34,485 Firearm Injuries 31,347 Alcohol-Induced 24,518 Illicit Drugs (2000) 17,0004 Homicide 16,799 Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 9,406 Viral hepatitis 7,694 Cannabis (Marijuana) 0
source:Â http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_DeathÂ
 @StringerJoe  @lakeview  @OrcasThunder Look who's talking. I'm still waiting on the stats to back up your statements joey.
 @lakeview  @OrcasThunder "I don't really feel like searching for stats, but I stand by my statement"
Â
Lazy and ignorant is no way to go through life, son.
 @OrcasThunder You read the news. When was the last time you heard of serious accidents in our area caused by drivers high on marijuana? I honestly can't think of any besides this one. I don't really feel like searching for stats, but I stand by my statement.Â
 @lakeview  @OrcasThunder Let's legalize more mind altering drugs and then wonder why....
 @lakeview "There are so few accidents caused by drivers high on marijuana though."
Really?
Stats, please.
I suspect that we will see a surprising (to some) number of these events, especially in single vehicle incidents.
I wonder if KOMO would have published this story if he was high on booze??? DUI is DUI no matter what it is, prescription drugs, Weed, Beer, wine, or hard liquor. We need to increase the harshness of anyone killing or injuring someone when they are deemed DUI. Enough of these hand slaps and verbal chastisement, some hard time and a lot of it might encourage those that want to get high to stay off the roads.Â
 @LongBeachBum Of course they would have published this story if the driver was drunk. Are you for real?
I doubt this will be the last time we read a story like this.
 @Oppenheimer Yes because legal or illegal DUI and DUII keeps on happening...........
Automatic grounds for execution.
 @quinoline Automatic grounds for appeal. (Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment) Nice try though.
 @Shaggy Law  @quinoline "Cruel and Unusual Punishment"...
Where in this story is that a factor?
 @OrcasThunder  @quinoline I was referring to quinoline "Automatic grounds for execution" comment. Stay with us buddy.Â
Thats why it should be done swiftly and often. Then its not cruel or unusual. LOL
 @Lord Farquad It is if it violates Due process, which enforcing quinoline's does. Nothing about execution is automatic in this county. Nor should it be.
Sad to say the least. At least the driver stuck around and waited for police. Unfortunately the head line makes everyone think that the driver was acting like someone out of Reefer Madness. There are varying degrees of intoxication. Most collisions like this are usually caused by drunk drivers who are much more dangerous behind the wheel. Looking at the picture it looks like a dark road which does not mix well with pedestrians. I can't count the number of times I have not seen people on the side of the road until almost upon them. They wear dark clothes and then add rain into the factor they are almost invisible until you are right next to them. I believe stupidity on both parties was the cause of this. I would be interested to see if the victim was wearing dark clothes in the rain and stepped out into the road. This should be a wake up call to pedestrians. If you walk along dark roads with dark clothes on a rainy night we drivers have a very hard time seeing you. The rain on the windshield and the glare from oncoming headlights create an ideal condition for tragedy.
SEATTLE -- Two Seattle police officers accused of drunkenly crashing into a light pole and leaving the scene were arrested early Monday morning. The officers, who were both off duty at the time, were driving in Seattle's SoDo area just after midnight on Monday when they hit what a witness described as a light pole, according to police. The witness told police that after the crash, the female driver stopped the car in the middle of the street, got out and switched places with her male passenger. Officers found the car roughly two miles away parked in the roadway with the motor running. When police approached the car, they immediately recognized the occupants as Seattle police officers. According to the arrest report, the female officer -- who was in the passenger seat -- repeatedly swore at the arresting officers and appeared "extremely intoxicated." The woman originally denied driving the car, but later admitted to being behind the wheel, according to the report. After being taken to the department's North Precinct for processing, the woman became combative and told an officer he "wasn't a real cop" because she had been on the force longer. When the officer informed her that he, in fact, had been an officer "considerably longer than her," the woman rushed towards him in "an aggressive manner" and had to be restrained by another officer. The woman eventually took two breath tests. Her blood alcohol level was .234 and .247. The legal limit for adults in Washington state is .08. The male officer blew .161 and .149. The woman was processed for DUI and the man was processed for DUI-physical control. Both were released. The car, which was not owned by the city, was impounded. SPD has initiated the Office of Professional Accountability complaint process and both officers have been administratively reassigned to home. Investigators are asking the City Attorney's Office to consider charges of DUI and Hit and Run for the female off-duty officer and DUI-Physical Control and Hit and Run for the male off-duty officer.
 @Funky-Munky They are SPD, so it is unlikely they will be punished.
 @Paul Sadly..... I am inclined to believe one rule for them...... another for everybody else...... :(
 @Funky-Munky So, if the officers were stoned instred of drunk, many stoners would be here saying "well, at least nobody was hurt," or taking some other approach to rationalize their own drug use? I agree. We see plenty of evidence of that in these posts.
 @StringerJoe  @Funky-Munky Please cite evidence Joey.Â
LOL. Well the answer is no to both those questions. All I hear is more talk without research to back it up. I enjoy smoking it, however it has no "hold" on me. You obviously uneducated about cannabis. Once again, your comment is not an argument but a personal attack on my character. You suggest counselling. I would suggest the same thing for you sir. (For a different reason.) You see joey, sometimes when people are not able to come up with a logical argument, they revert to defense mechanisms like projection in an effort to appease ones ego. I asked you stats and citing authority and you respond with insults. Oh, and my children are fine. They eat, they have shelter, and i spend more time with them than most fathers i know.  They're physical and emotional needs are being met. You are, once again, stereotyping me and fellow responsible users. Oh, and one last thing, many people find themselves interested many subjects you may disapprove of. It doesn't necessarily mean the subject is getting too much attention or focus nor is it necessarily a vice. I just happen to be more educated on the subject and if you wish to continue your campaign against marijuana, I would suggest you get more education on the issue as well.
"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." Sun Tzu, The Art of War.Â
 @Shaggy Law  @Funky-Munky Shags, read some of your own posts from today, which, by the way, consist solely of the topic of marijuana.
Â
When one of your vices gets so much attention and focus in your life, it can end up defining you. Maybe it's time to examine what sort of hold marijuana has on you. Do you always smoke weed in times of stress? or do you do it just to feel "normal"? If you answer 'yes' to one of these questions, it's time to seek professional counseling. Make the right choice, if not for yourself, but for your children.
 @StringerJoe Sadly you fail to see my point.......... DUI OR DUII happens to many different users/ walks of life and the causes vary of various drugs/prescription/inhalants etc.
 @Eddie_G You are actually complaining that I complain too much?
Pot...look in the mirror...
 @OrcasThunder Do you ever stop complaining? Every comment you've made has berated the other people commenting. This one complains about the "grammar' of someone who simply copied and pasted something from another source. Ironically, you spelled monologue wrong. Get off your high horse!
 @Funky-Munky Funk, I failed to see your point because all you did was copy and paste an article and didn't provide any personal opinion regarding the content. As to your follow-up post, what you are saying is something that is obvious to anyone. Drunk or high, it doesn't matter; any person who drives impaired should be dealt with harshly.
 @Funky-Munky  @StringerJoe "Sadly you fail to see my point"
Well...it would help if there had been some paragraphs to break it into smaller chunks...it's hard on the eyes to have such a large blob of text to go through.
And...it might help if you actually MADE a "point" in this monolog...
 @Funky-Munky What does that have to do with srticle?
people would be shocked to no how many drivers were high on pot before it was legal
 @norlan know, I wouldn't, ya no?
Okay, you must read the story and actually make an attempt to understand what actually happen. Seem like the person who was hit stepped into traffic. I don't see how being stoned, drunk or just a crappy driver could have avoided this tragedy. Would it be different if the person driving the vehicle was sober? Was this allegedly stone person driving following traffic laws? What about the pedestrian? Have they tested the pedestrian for drugs or alcohol? Now what if the pedestrian was stoned and the driver sober and the driver swerved and hit a pole and killed himself? Would the pedestrian get charged for steeping into traffic if he was stoned/drunk? Just trying to stir the pot.
 @Pedro Torres DUI trumps pedestrian's bad decision making in all cases.
 @DarkParty Not true. I have seen cases were pedestrians are at fault and driver only guilty of DUI/DWI. Others have been where a pedestrian was struck and killed by a drunk driver while jaywalking. Driver had green light passage. Driver and walker legally drunk/over the limit. Only accident investigation protocol found them to be intoxicated. Some charged/case dismissed. Some found innocent by Judge/Jury.
 @Pedro Torres I meant for news headlines.
 @Pedro Torres I don't think it matters if the pedestrian had drugs or alcohol on board, he's dead, jackass. It's probably policy to test the driver.
 @pensguy76I knew that. But you missed my point. What does the headline to this article lead you to believe and what does the story say. Is it the drivers fault for being stoned? Is it the pedestrians fault for steeping into traffic? And I did read the story and know the person is dead. in no way was I trying to be insensitive to someone loosing their life.