Court reverses conviction for man on prescriptions

DES MOINES (AP) ? Prosecutors failed to rebuff a defendant?s argument that he was taking prescribed drugs as directed when he was pulled over for erratic driving, the Iowa Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The court overturned the 2010 conviction of operating while under the influence of drugs of Dean O?Regan, 47, and ordered the charges dismissed.

In 2009, O?Regan was stopped on Interstate 80 near Mitchellville, east of Des Moines, after a state trooper saw him weaving in and out of lanes of traffic, court records show. During the traffic stop, the trooper found pill bottles prescribed to O?Regan for four different medications.

He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to two years in jail. He invoked what is called the prescription medication defense, which protects individuals from being prosecuted for operating under the influence charges if they are taking a medication prescribed by a doctor according to directions, if there is no evidence alcohol was used and the person was not told to refrain from driving.

The appeals court said that once a defendant has ?produced evidence sufficient to invoke the defense, the burden shifts to the state to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.?

?It is undisputed that O?Regan provided sufficient evidence showing the prescription medication defense applies in this case,? the appeals court wrote.

Kevin Cmelik, Iowa assistant attorney general, said prosecutors argued that O?Regan was not taking the medications as prescribed.

?It?s a fine line we have to be able to overcome when you talk about prescription drugs,? Cmelik said. ?We don?t want to convict people that can drive and who are taking drugs in a prescribed manner, but the state?s position was it wasn?t being done in this case.?

During the trial, the doctor who prescribed the drugs testified that he didn?t tell O?Regan not to drive and had no evidence that O?Regan was overusing the medication, court records show.

The doctor?s testimony and a label on a pill bottle warned that O?Regan should have understood the possible side effects of the drug before driving, according to the court?s ruling.

?These ?conditional warnings? are not sufficient under the language? of the law, the court wrote. ?In addition, the state ... presented no evidence that O?Regan was not taking his medications in accordance ... with directions.?

A telephone message left for O?Regan?s attorney was not returned.