PA Drug-DUI Offenses Are Strict Liability

Posted in DUI on November 30, 2025

The Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an important decision in drug-DUI cases under 75 Pa,C.S. 3802(d)(1) and (d)(2). On July 1, 2024, in Commonwealth v. Macik, the Court held that drug-DUI charges do not require the Commonwealth to prove any mens rea (mental state). The ruling reaffirms that these DUI–drug subsections are strict liability offenses, meaning the Commonwealth only must prove the presence of controlled substances in the driver’s blood (for §3802(d)(1)) or impairment from drugs (for §3802(d)(2)), not that the driver knew or should have known the drugs would still be in their system.

The Court them upheld the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Macik’s convictions, emphasizing long-standing precedent applying strict liability to DUI offenses.

Case Background

A traffic stop was conducted after Macik drove into oncoming traffic and cause an accident. The responding officer felt that she was under the influence of drugs, so he drove Macik to the police station. A Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) was summoned to administer impairment tests to Macik. The DRE concluded that Macik was impaired by drugs, so she was arrested and required to submit to a blood test.  The toxicology reports showed that Macik had amphetamines, methamphetamines, and benzodiazepines in her blood. Macik was convicted of DUI and sentenced to 90 days to 5 years in jail because this was a 2nd offense of DUI.

Macik’s Argument on Appeal

Macik appealed the conviction and argued that the Commonwealth needed to prove that she knew or should have known that drugs would remain in her system and impair her ability to drive the next day. She claimed the absence of such proof required reversal of her convictions.

The Superior Court noted that the PA Supreme Court had ruled that 3802(d)(1) prohibits one from driving:

Therefore, in order to obtain a conviction of violating 3802(d)(1), the Commonwealth need only prove: (1) that the defendant was in actual physical control or operated the motor vehicle; and (2) that he or she had a Schedule I, II, or III controlled substance or a metabolite of a controlled substance in hisor her blood.

The Court wrote “the nature of these offenses, i.e., traffic -related violations, as well as the minimal possible term of imprisonment resulting from a conviction, provide sufficient indicia that the legislature intended to eliminate the mens rea element and make operating a vehicle after consuming certain specified drugs, or combinations of drugs, a strict liability crime.” Because the charges are strict liability, it meant that the DA did NOT need to present evidence that Macik knew or should have known that drugs would remain in her system and that the drugs would also impair her ability to drive the following the day.

The Superior Court denied Macik’s appeal and upheld her convictions.

Why the Decision Matters

This case reinforces several important principles in Pennsylvania DUI law:

1. DUI–drug charges do not require knowledge or intent.

Drivers are responsible for any amount of certain drugs in their system—regardless of timing, prescription mistakes, or expectations about how long drugs remain detectable.

2. Controlled substance DUIs are among the easiest for the Commonwealth to prove.

Especially under §3802(d)(1), the mere presence of a Schedule I–III drug is enough.

3. Defendants cannot argue “I didn’t know the drug was still in my system.”

Mens rea is simply not part of the statute.

4. The decision strengthens prosecutors’ ability to secure convictions in “next day” DUI cases.

A prior night’s use—or even use believed to be safely past—can still result in a strict-liability DUI conviction.

Conclusion

The Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Macik delivers a clear reaffirmation: Pennsylvania DUI–drug offenses under §3802(d)(1) and (2) are strict liability crimes. As long as the Commonwealth can prove the presence of a controlled substance or impairment by drugs, a conviction does not require showing intent, knowledge, or recklessness.

This ruling underscores Pennsylvania’s strong public-safety approach to DUI enforcement and limits available defenses in controlled-substance DUI prosecutions.