My correspondent told me that jury selection did begin on Monday.

According to police, issued to the media, at the time:

• A WB driver crossed over into the EB lane and collided head-on and killed Russell Jenkins
• “The rider…  had a working headlight on his bike”
• “The surviving cyclists … reported that Foshee had a strong odor of alcohol”
• “The driver fled the scene, but the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Traffic Unit later arrested Gary Foshe [Foshee], 53″
• “two deputies reported that Foshee had a strong odor of alcohol and several signs of intoxication”

The defendant’s prior DUI conviction, as well as his blood test results are likely to be key factors. On the other hand, the issue of the victim’s posthumous blood test results is, from what i can tell, irrelevant because it did not affect the crash in any way.

Much more background here and here.

——– original article follows ——–

The dramatic weakening of what were formerly among the most severe DUI penalties in the US take effect in mid-July 2011 – Hundreds of new Arizona laws take effect this week

In what seems to be annual ritual, the Arizona legislature passed and the governor signed changes to Arizona’s DUI laws via SB1200 (Spring 2011: 50th, 1st regular session).

There are a whole bunch of tweaks to the length of ignition interlock (IID), length of suspensions, fines, and so forth, see the fact sheets at the azleg link for a somewhat long history. Perhaps the most controversial provision is that it reduces the length of time for IID for non-extreme first-time DUI from 12 to 6 months if certain requirements are met.

Any reduction in DUI penalties would reverse a trend toward ever-toughening sanctions. Here’s a news article: Bill would lessen DUI penalties, cut trials (my comments in parentheticals):

Sen. Steve Pierce R-Prescott, says it’s an effort to “help keep people on the road.” (wow, this is a really remarkable statement. The “people” he’s referring to are convicted criminals, people i would rather see off the road because they’ve lost their driving PRIVILEGE) …

The changes were needed, Pierce said, to soften harsh policies that were “damaging families, damaging people’s lives,” while encouraging offenders to change their behavior.

Supporters of the bill say the interlock and other provisions don’t just give criminals a second chance, they shift much of the expense to the individual instead of the government. (I’m not sure how true this is. From what i read elsewhere there is no right to jury trial, the defendant has to petition for it and only if they can show some sort of hardship is it granted).

“It’ll save the taxpayers,” Gray said, about not requiring a jury trial. “Why go through all that expense for a jury trial for one day (in jail)?” (from what i understand, persons convicted and sent to jail are assessed some huge fines which are supposed to offset the costs) .

The bill puts the now-mandatory 24 hours in jail for first offenders to the “discretion of the presiding judge.” It allows judges to cut 30 days to nine for extreme DUI cases. For super-extreme DUI, the 45-day minimum sentence could be reduced to 14 days. All the reductions are contingent on having the interlock installed. (this vast reduction in potential penalties kind of disturbs me; though I do think other things might be more effective than jail such as longer, supervised, license suspensions) .

Perhaps the most notable from a big-picture point of view is “Eliminates the requirement that a person charged with first time, non-extreme DUI be entitled to a jury trial.

According to an AZ Rep editorial,New DUI law wasn’t vetted, this provision was done in secret at the last minute… though I’m not sure that’s true.

Since the case was out of Tucson, it would have been heard in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two. And sure enough, it popped right up under recent cases: STATE OF ARIZONA v. AARON RAYMOND FIKES CR20110124. Note that the driver was up on serious charges, aggravated (indicating other/previous problems; such as previous simple dui convictions, or suspension, or driving dui with a minor in the vehicle) DUI, and driving on a suspended license, for which he was sentenced to 4 months in jail and 3 years of probation.

In short, the conviction was tossed because the traffic stop was found to be without just cause, and therefore the evidence that the driver was DUI should have been supressed. The State Attorney General’s office vows appeal to Arizona Supreme Court.

It’s pretty interesting; it revolves entirely around interpretation of a Title 28 Statute, §28-939  ,regarding stop lamps; and delves into the “legislative intent” of that law. P.S. the stop lamp itself is required by another statute, §28-927. I was kind of surprised when they said “Thus, we conclude the statute is ambiguous”, referring to a sub-clause 28-939(B)(2) involving glare from a lamp. This caused a whole side-trip into the legislative intent, and legislative history of the statute.

There’s an footnote that would be of interest to anyone trying to track the legislative history of any Title 28 Transportation statutes:

Although passed in 1995, Senate Bill 1364 took effect “from and after December 31, 1996.” 1995 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 132, §§ 3, 12. One of the effects of S.B. 1364 was a renumbering of all of the Transportation Statutes. Id. (enacting current § 28-939 as A.R.S. § 28-3179). However, before S.B. 1364 took effect, the legislature passed S.B. 1076 which reverted to the old numbering but did not make any changes to the text of  § 28-939. 1996 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 76, § 18. Therefore, although S.B. 1364 is the most  recent modification, we need not consider it in our analysis.

…

The manslaughter and endangerment trial of Gary Foshee in connection with a fatal traffic collision in August of 2009 has been delayed again and again and again.

Trial was originally set for 5/24/2010; however it was reset because “Defendant needs additional time for expert to complete investigation…” (this was 9 months after the incident), so was first delayed to 7/26/2010.

Then for some reason that was delayed.

Then the trial set for 9/28/2010 was missed: “Defense counsel orally moves to continue the Trial. Defense counsel’s expert witness will not be available to testify at the Evidentiary Hearing…”.

Then there’s a whole bunch more motions and case minutes.

The case minute dated 5/16/2011 which re-sets the pre-trial conference to 5/18/2011, at which time i suppose the trial date will get set (again). “Due to the unavailability of Defense witness”. Trial was then set for August 15, 2011 (! exactly 2 years after the incident).

Oops, another delay  (for seemingly unspecified reasons by the state; the defense did not object), make that trial date of 10/4/2011.

Oops Oops again another delay  (again, for seemingly unspecified reasons by the state; the defense did not object): new trial date 11/28/2011.

Oops, oops, another delay, another new trial date “The Court finds that delay is indispensable to the interests of justice… A defense expert is not available. IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion to Continue … resetting the trial to January 23, 2012“.

Some background information and media reports about the incident which occurred 8/15/2009: Queen Creek hit-and-run; driver arrested

The Foshee trial is the only criminal case remaining involving a cyclist fatality for the 2009 calendar year. You can track court proceedings at publicaccess.

Here’s the latest bit of upcoming wrangling: Evidentiary Hearing re: State’s Motion in Limine to
Preclude Any Mention of Victim’s Blood and Oral Argument re: State’s Motion in Limine
to Preclude Defense Witness for April 13, 2011 at 9:30 a.m

The prosecution has dropped the DUI charge (back in March), so I’m not sure what’s what with that — that leaves the manslaughter and 2x endangerment charges going forward.

Another Delay, and two blows against the defense

There was some sort of hearing April 18 with a bunch of substantive rulings. Defense counsel’s Motion to Continue Trial due to the unavailability of a witness was granted, trial now to start May 16, 2011. And in two blows against the defense, the Defendant’s prior DUI conviction will be admissible, and the Victim’s tox results will be excluded.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion and the Defendant’s prior DUI conviction is admissible

IT IS ORDERED granting the State’s Motion and excluding the Victim’s Toxicology Results.

And the defense loses AGAIN on 6/17 minute entry:

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion of Reconsideration. The transcript provided of Dr. Lyons does not establish impairment of the victim; only that he could have been impaired

…

here are some blog posts about the “ghost bike” memorial:

• queencreekevolves.blogspot.com
• www.bygonebicyclist.com
• azroadsidememorials.wordpress.com

The driver of a heavy commercial dump truck piled into a group of motorcyclists who were stopped at a red light; reportedly he was distracted.

Phoenix Public Safety Manager Jack Harris described the scene “I have never seen such a horrific accident involving so many motorcycles,”

The crash 3/25/2010 at Carefree Highway and 27th way, Phoenix, initially killed 3, a fourth died a few days later. Several were seriously injured, including a Phoenix Fire Captain in critical condition.

Today the Arizona Republic is reporting in a 3/27/2010 story that the driver has a string of infractions, many of which sound like technical/equipment-related, and several of them were dismissed. However, the driver has an outstanding citation for failure to control about two weeks ago in Scottsdale, related to an (apparently minor) collision. These cases pop up on a search of the Arizona Supreme Court case lookup. But strangely, the reporter seems to be unaware of additional actions in Maricopa Justice Court, including one just dated just a couple of days before the huge crash. (search on Michael Jakscht)

The investigation is still ongoing, but with no hints of impairment the likely outcome, barring a surprise, will be a traffic ticket and no criminal charges.

The Surprise

Driver in fatal Phoenix motorcycle crash booked on 4 manslaughter counts, 4/06/2010 & Bond for driver in fatal motorcycle crash set at $1 million, 4/07/2010, AZ Republic.

Phoenix police arrested Jakscht on suspicion of driving under the influence of methamphetamine. He was booked on four counts of manslaughter, five counts of aggravated assault and seven counts of endangerment. Apparently the suspect’s circumstances forced a quick arrest, and resulted in a relatively large bond.

The former article had lots of interesting snippets about how or why this investigation proceeded amazingly quickly. It has been only about two weeks since the crash (emphasis added):

Toxicology results take up to six weeks in most criminal investigations, according to police. Jakscht’s blood sample, which police drew after he passed field sobriety tests, was made a priority.

“In this case, to get the result, so he doesn’t drive more or drive impaired, it was the department’s decision to make it a priority,” Phoenix police Sgt. Trent Crump said.

…The Carefree Highway wreck came two weeks after Jakscht was cited by Scottsdale police for failing to control his speed to avoid a collision at Shea Boulevard and Hayden Road. The police accident report detailed how Jakscht, driving a pickup truck in his name, struck a stopped vehicle.

The Trial

The trial ended and went to the jury on friday Aug 12, 2011.

The prosecution maintained the driver was impaired; though it seems like they are depending on tox results that showed the driver tested positive for methamphetamines.  This is a big deal in any sort of “drug” accusation: “Unlike with alcohol use, there is no statutory blood-content level for methamphetamine that constitutes impairment. So the determination has to be based on the testimony of the police officer who administered the roadside sobriety test and observed the defendant’s demeanor” – azcentral.com. I’m sure there were hours and hours of dueling expert testimony on the blood tests.

The defense maintains the defendant was not impaired at the time, and that the positive result is due to diet pills. They also blame the crash on brake failure.

The contrast between drug impairment vs. alcohol impairment via blood tests is stark — it is quite possible/likely that many many drug-impaired drivers involved in crashes go undetected, or even when detected it’s so much more difficult to prove that prosecutors become unwilling to even go there.

The trial ended with a hung jury (9-3 in favor of acquittal) on Aug 18. Prosecutors must now decide whether to peruse a new trial. Interesting comments by lawyer Vlad Gagic that ring true , though perhaps “NO signs or symptoms of impairment” is too strong, to my uninformed ears:

“My belief is that the jury did not convict Mr. Jaskcht because there were no signs or symptoms of impairment. Thus, even if a driver has an illegal drug metabolite in your system and he is guilty of a illegal drug DUI, if the driver is not impaired then he cannot be guilty of manslaughter, endangerment, or manslaughter. In the parlance of legal procedure, the defense did something very smart: they presented their own alternative version of events…”

…

Over the period of time between then and March 24th he claimed repeatedly that the police report will reveal that, among other things, that he did not seek legislative immunity, and that he was “stone cold sober”… ”The final police report, released Thursday, largely contradicts his story”. Senate GOP unsure about Sen. Scott Bundgaard’s story, future

There are loads of salacious details and questions but I am mainly concerned with the drinking/driving aspect, and how legislative immunity works.

Well, the full report was released Mar 24.  Arizona Republic Witnesses: Bundgaard assaulted girlfriend:

Bundgaard has said that he told police he was a state senator. But he has repeatedly said he never invoked his legislative immunity from arrest. Several officers at the scene, however, said Bundgaard cited a provision in the state Constitution that allows lawmakers to avoid arrest during legislative sessions except in cases of felony, treason and breach of the peace.

(Phx PD officer) Rodarme said that as soon as he introduced himself to Bundgaard, the senator said: “I demand you take these handcuffs off. I’m state Senator Scott Bundgaard, and according to Article 4 of the Constitution, you cannot detain me. I’m immune from arrest when the Legislature is in session, in which it currently is.”

Shortly thereafter, Bundgaard, who called his sister from the freeway, was released and drove home with his family. Ballard (the girlfriend) was booked into jail.

…  Bundgaard has said Ballard was drunk and that he had not been drinking. He told police he had “one sip of wine” that evening.

Rodarme observed otherwise, writing, “I smelled alcohol on his breath.” He said he asked Bundgaard how much he’d had to drink.

“I did not drink tonight,” Bundgaard replied, according to the report. Rodarme asked him to take a field-sobriety test or breath test. Bundgaard refused, according to the report.

Arizona’s implied-consent law permits officers to demand blood-alcohol testing if there is probable cause to believe a person was behind the wheel while impaired. But a police spokesman said Thursday that officers at the time did not believe they had probable cause to force Bundgaard to submit himself to such a test because they had not observed Bundgaard driving, much less in an erratic way.

Bundgaard said in an interview Thursday with 12 News that when asked to take the test, “I said ‘no’ because I had not been drinking.” Ballard, however, told police that she saw Bundgaard drinking at the social event…

“I then told him, ‘I’ve been doing this job for 12 years, and I know you have been drinking because I could smell it on your breath,’ ” Rodarme wrote.

It seems clear now in the light of the full police report that Bungaard lied about not invoking legislative immunity; and also lied when he said he had nothing to drink. Was he drunk? We’ll never know. I believe had it been anyone else (not a legislator), the police would have found a way to get a warrant to draw blood — they don’t take kindly to refusals to undergo field sobriety tests.

Legislative Immunity

I’m not sure how many states have this, but Arizona is one of them. The idea is to prevent your political enemies from using arrest to muck up legislative duties. Note that it only applies to arrest, not prosecution. It is generally agreed that anything can be prosecuted, it just needs to be delayed until the legislature is out of session. Beyond that there is a wide variety of opinions about what sorts of things the immunity applies to, e.g. there are some US Supreme Court decisions on the topic.(Laurie Roberts column) that says “”.  Others argue those cases don’t apply to states, only federally.

in 1908 in Williamson vs. United States and again in 1934 in Long vs. Anshell, the U.S Supreme Court held that legislative immunity applies only to an arrest in a civil suit. “When the Constitution was adopted, arrests in civil suits were still common in America,” the court wrote in 1934. “It is only to such arrests that the provision applies.”

Blast from the past

Bundgaard’s claim that he did not invoke legislative immunity, as well as the drinking and driving and refusal to undergo field-sobriety testing sound ominously familiar to a story told by (now Govenor) Jan Brewer in May 4, 1988,when she herself was a state legislator. She had been drinking / driving and rear-ended another vehicle. The DPS officer believed she was intoxicated, even writing her a citation; however she was never charged. According to Brewer, a DPS lieutenant simply sprung her, i.e. that she had legislative immunity foisted upon her.

Back in 2007, legislator Trish Groe (R-Lake Havasu City) didn’t claim immunity and plead to a DUI.

Updates

Bundgaard was charged with misdemeanor assault in connection with this incident in June 2011

…

Ariz. high court rules on DUI blood-test issue

Jun. 7, 2010 02:33 PM, Associated Press

Larissa Jean Castilleja

Larissa Jean Castilleja, 43, a Bullhead City High teacher was killed Sept 9, 2009 when a driver hit her and fled the scene.

This fatality bears many similarities to several of four recent fatalities in the Phoenix-metro area this past summer.

1. the automobile driver hit-and-ran (all 5 incidents)
2. DUI on the part of the automobile driver is suspected (at least 4 of the 5 incidents)
3. time of day was overnight/early morning (ranging from 10pm to 4am)
4. no improper actions on the part of the cyclist are suspected (all 5 incidents)

The suspect was later charged with manslaughter and leaving the scene, on Sept 28 he plead not guilty; and according to the Mojave Daily News, has secured himself  all-star Scottsdale DUI lawyer Scott Maasen. In granting the reduced bond, the judge expressed reservations and then … did it anyway! It was also revealed in that story that the defendant has an outstanding warrant for DUI in Nevada, which he says he is not aware of.

The Plea

The defendant plead guilty to manslaughter, leaving the scene, and DUI. Sentencing is scheduled for May 21, 2010. Case number S-8015-CR-200900986, online lookup.

Sentencing

The [mohavedailynews] had a pretty good rundown of the sentencing:

Judge Steven Conn sentenced Gagliardi to prison for 13 years for both felony crimes (8 for the manslaughter, 5 for hit-and-run), saying the two charges were separate crimes and deserved consecutive sentences. He only found a lack of criminal record as a mitigating factor and that Gagliardi also had about 20 moving violations, mostly for speeding. He found aggravating factors that Gagliardi’s blood alcohol rate was more than twice the legal limit and the emotional harm to Castilleja’s family. The judge also said he hoped the sentences would be a deterrent to people who visit the casinos and drink then get into their cars to drive home.

see also [kingmandailyminer].

—

Full text  of Bullhead City Police Department Press Release (.pdf here , includes a picture of the suspect) is below. It is well written and contains a lot of salient information, e.g. it specifically mentions the time of the collision, and the fact that the bicycle was equipped with lights. My only criticism is the use of the term ‘accident‘ — which should, of course, of been ‘collision’, or ‘crash’

Fatal Vehicle vs. Bicycle Accident
The Bullhead City Police Department arrested 53-year-old Gino Salvatore Gagliardi of Fort Mojave, Arizona for leaving the scene of a fatal accident after hitting a cyclist with his vehicle. Manslaughter charges are pending.
At 4:12 a.m. on Wednesday, September 9th, 43-year-old Larissa Jean Castilleja of Bullhead City was riding her bicycle southbound on the Bullhead Parkway, near North Oatman Road, when she was struck by a 1983 green GMC van driven by Gagliardi. Castilleja was pronounced dead at the scene.
Gagliardi’s vehicle, which had front-end damage and a flat tire, was found abandoned on Adobe and Mountain Pass Road. Witnesses say he left the area on foot. A few hours later, police located Gagliardi at his Fort Mojave residence. After further
investigation, police believe that alcohol may have been a contributing factor in this accident. A blood sample was taken from Gagliardi and per the Mohave County Attorney, manslaughter charges are pending the laboratory analysis of the blood. He was booked into the Mohave County Jail in Kingman.
Castilleja was wearing a helmet and her bicycle was equipped with safety lights.

…

2009 AZ Cyclist Fatality Grid

News reports: KPHO azcentral Mojave Daily News

Here is near where the collision occurred. Maricopa Road is a fast (posted 50MPH) two-lane rural highway — one relatively narrow lane in each direction, there is a shoulder stripe and perhaps a foot or so of irregular asphalt and lots of gravel

In the several months that have passed, I am looking for updates on the status of the investigation. From what I gather, sometimes but not always, serious crimes on the reservation go to federal jurisdiction, see e.g. Sacaton man gets 27 years in killing of Gilbert bicyclist (more detail in the DoJ press release). Here’s some more explanations, see “Role of Gila River Indian Community Justice System”, from meeting minutes of the Arizona State, Tribal, and Federal Court Forum.

2009 AZ Cyclist Fatality Grid

Criminal Case

I spoke with Sgt. Hilario Tanakeyowma of GRIC PD (GRIC PD main number — I had some difficulties finding this — (520)562-7139, x7122). in mid-March 2010 and he confirmed that the defendant is in custody and was charged with manslaughter.

Case  CR-2009007876 in Maricopa County Superior Court, and can be looked up at  supremecourt.az.gov. Strangely, when I looked this up in mid-March, the case was sealed for some reason(?). In any event David Allen Wiechens, Sr. plead guilty to manslaughter. Sentencing is scheduled for April 30, 2010. This carries a presumptive sentence of 10.5 years (13-704 , dangerous, non-repetitive). On April 30, for unknown reasons, sentencing was “continued” to 06/18/2010 at 8:30 a.m.

Sentencing then did occur on 6/18, minute entry here. Defendant was sentenced to 10 years in prison and ordered to pay $8,019.28 restitution to the victim’s parents, and his driver’s license was revoked.

Arizona Crash Report

I obtained a copy of the crash report # 09-14619 from GRIC PD.

The report written by Officer M. Evins appears to be of very high quality, with several lucid pages of narrative and witness statements. The manner of collision is not at all what I had imagined. There were three cyclists traveling together; but they were not physically together. They were each separated by ~ 50 yards, and they were all riding to the right of the fog line, on the very small paved shoulder. Wiechans passed the first two without incident, after passing the second cyclist he inexplicably swerved sharply, thus striking and killing Gray. Wiechan’s statement was that he saw two cyclists only and then heard a loud bang. There were many witnesses; in addition to the two cyclists who were not struck, the driver and passenger of a car traveling behind Wiechens also saw the whole thing. Wiechans, up until the fatal swerve, did not appear to be driving erratically, according to witnesses behind him. There is a hypotheses put forward by the investigating officer about the fatal swerve: “It is believed that David (Wiechans) was drinking from the open Bud Light bottle while he was driving and possibly spilled it in his lap when the collision occurred because I observed a fairly large wet spot in the right groin area of his pants”.

Other issues: according to the report the vehicle involved was purchases just a few days before the crash; and that it had no insurance. The investigating officer found an “…Admin per se suspension in the open center console dated 1/2/09 at 2032 hours at a location in PCSO’s jurisdiction with BAC results of .171 and .164 which was impounded as evidence”.  In addtion to GRIC PD, a DPS Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) was called in, and blood was drawn.Though alcohol was clearly involved, the suspect was not apparently particularly drunk, though other impairment was suspected. Any results are not in the crash report — but presumably figured heavily into the criminal case.

azcentral :

Chandler man dies in car-bicycle accident [accident? grrrrr]

by Cathryn Creno – Apr. 17, 2009, The Arizona Republic

A 43-year-old Chandler man died Sunday after his bicycle and a car collided on Maricopa Road on the Gila River Indian Community, tribal police said Thursday.

Alia Maisonet, community public information officer, said Michael Gray was dead at the scene, in front of the Koli Equestrian Center, when medics arrived about 3 p.m. She did not release the name of the driver of the car, saying tribal police continue to investigate the accident.

The Maricopa County Medical Examiners Office said Thursday that Gray died of “multiple blunt force injuries.”

“The investigation revealed the victim was struck by a vehicle driven by a white male non-community member,” she said in a statement. “Alcohol may have been a contributing factor.”

One wonders how this ties into crashes involving injuries and death. Is blood routinely drawn, even when the driver passes field sobriety tests, as was the case of the dump truck driver who killed 4 motorcyclists recently?

Apparently blood was drawn from the driver who killed Allen Johnson — the investigation of which dragged on for 5 months culminating in a traffic ticket. Conversely, presumably no blood was drawn from the driver who killed Jerome Featherman. That case wrapped up with a couple of traffic tickets more-or-less immediately. Both cases were handled by the Pima County Sheriff’s Office, and in both cases impairment was not suspected. Was the driver who killed Featherman under any influence of prescription drugs? We’ll never know for sure.

It seems to me that blood should be drawn in any serious injury crash, and most certainly in EVERY crash involving a fatality. What are the rules?

Another problem is what to do with the results; The 21 year-old driver who killed Lance Adams (walking on the SIDEWALK, for cryin’ out loud!) was never charged despite Ambien (sleeping pill) , Darvon (a narcotic pain reliever),  plus some marijuana in his blood. In that case, police recommended charges but the prosecutor wouldn’t bring any. Setting the marijuana aside; the warning for both these medicines has warnings not to drive (as do many, many medicines).

Background Info on drug impairment

Ambien / Zolpidem

Zolpidem (sold under the brand name Ambien) is a short-acting nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic with quick onset, and short (2 – 2.6hrs) half-life. It is well known that it can cause driving impairment, particularly when not taken as directed.

In hunting around for quantitative info on Ambien impairment, I ran across work from WSLH, the Wisconsin State Laboratory for Hygiene. Within their perview is the Medical Toxicology Section which performs alcohol and drug analysis for law enforcement agencies in support of Wisconsin law enforcement. Zolpidem Impaired Drivers in Wisconsin A Six Year Retrospective, William R. Johnson, et al. [.ppt of presentation][view online]

A white paper from the IECP :  Zolpidem and Driving – A Dangerous Mix [.pdf][view online] has some useful summaries.

Some interesting info on voluntary vs. involuntary acts with respect to drug DUI from this CA defense attorney firm.

Here are two published papers, with PubMed link (and also, click on either and check out the “related”):

• J Forensic Sci. 2001 Jan;46(1):105-10. Zolpidem and driving impairment. Logan BK, Couper FJ.
• WMJ. 2003;102(6):79-83. Forensic Toxicology Program: alcohol and drug testing in Wisconsin drivers. Harding P, Liddicoat LJ. [full .pdf article]

Ambien/zolpidem prescribing info – warnings (emphasis added): “Patients should be cautioned against engaging in hazardous occupations requiring complete mental alertness or motor coordination such as operating machinery or driving a motor vehicle after ingesting the drug, including potential impairment of the performance of such activities that may occur the day following ingestion of Ambien”

Here’s a handy reference list to drugs/driving: nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/index.htm