Tennessee Law Declares Narcan Recipients 'Under the Influence' for 24 Hours
The Ben Kredich Act, named for a young man killed by an allegedly impaired motorist, overcorrects in response to a tragic incident.

On July 1, new laws will go into effect in a number of U.S. states. One Tennessee law would make suspicion of opioid impairment sufficient to establish evidence of driving under the influence.
In August 2023, Ben Kredich was struck and killed when a vehicle swerved off the road. The driver, Shannon Walker, had apparently passed out behind the wheel while under the influence of opioids; in April, a grand jury indicted Walker on charges including vehicular homicide, driving under the influence, and possession of controlled substances.
Earlier the same day, Walker had been found unresponsive in his vehicle. Responding paramedics administered Narcan, the drug that can reverse opiate overdoses, and took Walker to the hospital; he was discharged about 90 minutes after officers first found him. The hospital later issued a statement claiming Walker "left hospital premises as a passenger in a vehicle, not as a driver." Kredich was struck and killed less than an hour after Walker left the hospital.
In May, Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, signed the Ben Kredich Act into law. "For the purpose of proving a person violated state law relative to driving under the influence of an intoxicant," the bill states, "evidence that the person was suspected to be impaired…and was administered within 24 hours prior to the alleged violation, an opioid antagonist for an opioid-related overdose, creates a presumption that the defendant's ability to drive was sufficiently impaired by the substance that caused the opioid-related overdose to constitute a violation of state law."
In other words, if a person suspected of an opioid overdose is administered Narcan, then for the next 24 hours, there will now be a legal presumption that they are too impaired to drive. But is that good science?
"I think that the 24-hour limit is arbitrary," says Jeffrey Singer, a practicing physician and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "It depends a great deal on the patient's metabolism, kidney function, what other medications are in their system, and tolerance level. For example, many chronic pain patients who are maintained on fairly high doses of opioids are lucid, fully functioning, and able to work. Narcan can wear off in 30 to 90 minutes, and the half-life of oxycodone is roughly 3 hours. So, it is perfectly conceivable that a patient administered Narcan can be fully competent and no longer impaired in less than 24 hours."
"This one-size-fits-all approach is not evidence-based and puts many lucid acute and chronic pain patients or patients at risk," Singer tells Reason.
Kredich's death is tragic, and Walker may indeed deserve prison time. But passing a law to address a previous tragedy is unfortunately a common occurrence.
"Bills named after sympathetic victims are the worst form of knee-jerk lawmaking," attorney Ted Frank wrote in 2016. "A crime or event that apparently warrants a new law is by definition a rare occasion, often a high-profile tragedy where multiple things have gone wrong. Existing laws already make violent acts criminal, so the new law typically attempts to close some perceived loophole. But it almost always is an overcorrection that creates more problems than it solves."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Seems like a much simpler argument is that the driver has already been charged with the crime.
I despise all these new laws with new ways to make already illegal behavior even more illegal. It's like selling left-handed hammers.
""left-handed hammers.””
Defense contractors sell those for about $5,000
$20,000 toilet seats.
"You don't think they actually spend $5,000 on a hammer!"
🙂
Ask Paul Pelosi.....
Yeah, doesn't seem like there was any shortage of things to charge him with. This seems stupid and unnecessary. If you want to charge someone with impaired driving, you should have to show that they were, you know, impaired.
I despise Narcan,I think it encourages Drug use.
Moved
>>he was discharged about 90 minutes after officers first found him.
if under the influence, why?
Hospital does claim he wasn't driving, though that could be a lie.
if the cops brought him to a hospital, i doubt they brought his car with them.
do they generally release under the influence people even to other drivers? literally asking
All the time. People go home drunk from the ER, or on narcotics, either prescribed or otherwise. All the fucking time. We don't babysit them at the hospital, especially the ER. We rarely have the staffing or beds necessary to sober them up too (besides the fact that most insist on being discharged, and by law we can't deny them those rights, unless a court has ruled them incompetent). As long as their stable, with no other medical conditions that require longer treatment, the ER is there to treat and street them.
perfect. thank you.
In Mayberry the sheriff had a pretty effective method of keeping the town drunk off the street. There may have been some civil rights violations involved.
Otis Campbell would let himself in.
Ernest T. Bass was another story
Because hospitals aren't there to sober you up. We don't have the staffing or beds to do so, and legally we can't hold them if they insist on leaving (which surprise, most drunks and druggies do).
but no liability for hospital as though I let him leave my house under the influence ... interesting
Oh there is liability issues, but we can't detain them against their will, and most drunks and druggies aren't exactly compliant patients.
That's why we generally get a responsible party to sign them out.
makes sense.
I don't think you can hold someone in your house against his will, just because he's drunk.
anecdata: in New Jersey in the 80s if you let someone leave your party impaired you were liable for their car wreck damages.
I used to work hospital security. We would report patients to PD if they drove away impaired. We would not stop them, but we would warn them that we would be calling PD. We also did this if people tried to drive after anesthesia.
also makes sense. thanks.
if under the influence, why?
Make room for all the other 'of COVID' deaths.
also also makes sense.
"Naloxone works to reverse opioid overdose in the body for only 30 to 90 minutes. But many opioids remain in the body longer than that. Because of this, it is possible for a person to still experience the effects of an overdose after a dose of naloxone wears off. "
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/naloxone
Seems like someone who just overdosed probably isn't in a good place to drive for at least as long as it takes for the actual opioid to run its course. 3-5 hours half-life, but how much more than a standard dose does it take to overdose? And how long would you be intoxicated on that amount? The normal dose already recommends not driving, right? 24 hours seems fair.
The facts of the story are all questionable. Standard fare for Joe.
Honestly, if you are so bad at living your life that you need to be dosed with Narcan to begin with, you should probably have your license suspended as a precaution. You even can't be trusted to operate yourself; you sure as shit can't be trusted to operate a motor vehicle.
And I say this as somebody who believes that all drugs should be legalized. I just have no sympathy or patience for people who cannot, or will not, medicate themselves responsibly.
Suspending someone's license won't do any good. If they're using drugs, they will drive anyway. There are many people driving the roads with no license, no insurance and no common sense or decency.
There's a lady I read about that had had her license suspended 8 times for DUI and after the 9th conviction they took her license away. So a few months later they caught her drinking and driving again.
Insert reference to criminals are gonna criminal here.
This.
I mean, I think of myself as a frothing-at-the-mouth libertarian, but if we are going to have driver’s licenses, we might as well have licenses that mean something. Given the choice between someone who ODed three hours ago and a random 13-year-old driving my car, you know I’m going to be sliding the seat up.
It also depends on the formulation. Extended release have a half life of 12-24 hours. Immediate release tend to be 4-6 hours. Also, if you've never seen someone hit with Narcan, it isn't a mild awakening, it is an abrupt, total binding of opioid receptors for its duration, which means a complete elimination of any and all narcotics in your system for 30-90 minutes, an abrupt, sudden elimination. How do you think habitual users respond to that?
Near instant sobering , followed by immediate hangover symptoms and projectile vomiting. But I've only seen it once.
Immediate withdraw symptoms. Some people are in a very bad mood when you revive them.
That's putting it mildly.
And for those with real pain issues, sudden and severe onset of excruciating pain.
"a complete elimination of any and all narcotics in your system for 30-90 minutes" Soldiermedic76
I am sure you know this, but just to clarify for others. The Narcotics are still in your system after being given Narcan. However, they are unable to bind with receptors in the cells so they are unable to have any effect, it is as if it was eliminated from your system. A blood test would still show the drugs in your system. Also, once Narcan wears off the narcotics still in the system can once again bind with the cells. In fact once given Narcan they should be kept under observation until the Narcan wears off as they could go back into overdose due to the level or Narcotics in their blood. Also, if not observed they may take more narcotics making the level even higher than it was when they overdosed, causing them to overdose again.
The facts of the story are all questionable. Standard fare for Joe.
I LOLed at the juxtaposition of “It is perfectly conceivable that…” and the “This one-size fits all approach is not evidence-based…” sentences.
So, uh, I don’t normally defend laws named after people, but you don’t have any evidence either but here white-knighting on behalf of somebody who overdosed, got narcan in time, but didn’t overdose too much, just the Goldilocks amount, to have their motorist
rightsprivileges infringed upon unduly, over the dead person whose name we know.Come back when you’ve got a clinical trial-sized group of narcan survivors’ reaction times and we’ll shave the likely 2-6 hours off your “victim’s” privilege infringement you fucking grievance ghoul.
It appears that this guy is going to be punished for his crimes. So I don't know what problem the new law is supposed to address. And in general I'm not a fan of reducing the burden of proof for any crime. If someone was DWI, prove that they were impaired while driving, not that they ODed 12 hours ago. Shouldn't be too hard if they still have enough dope in their system that they pass out when the narcan wears off.
Opioids tend to be much more variable than even BAC is and it's impairment. Some people, even those who never have taken them, can process extremely high levels with little to no impairment, and it tends to clear these people's systems at a different rate than predicted. Others, they clear much slower, and impact more. Setting a minimum legal level is far more complicated than for ETOH (and that's far more variable than those laws admit also).
You sound a lot like ENB on this. You know at some point harm will absolutely take place, but if you hedge as close as possible, you’re, somehow, doing less harm and, seemingly, out of the (near insane) motivation that the underlying behavior or liberty is some sort of inherent moral good when it’s pretty obvious that it’s not.
And in general I’m not a fan of reducing the burden of proof for any crime.
Narrator Voice: He then proceeds to both discount the actual evidence and lower the burden of proof.
OD + Narcan = probable cause for impairment.
vs.
Kinda swervy + maybe groggy = probable cause for impairment.
Either way, probable cause can/does get you 24-48 hours. in lockup. The former just objectifies the whole affair.
Shouldn’t be too hard if they still have enough dope in their system that they pass out when the narcan wears off.
Again, we aren’t even talking about a right, but a public privilege. You OD, get narcan, and your passed out body turns up in public in 3, 6, 9, 12 hours later, yeah, the police can rifle through your shit and if you’ve got weapons on you they’re potentially illegally/inappropriately maintained/stored… in a car or not. Taking them to the hospital or lockup for the blood draw is going to take several hours and probable cause and detention anyway.
And who are you white knighting for here? The people who OD 6 hours before they have to show up at work? I could agree if we were talking about someone passed out in their car parked in a hospital parking lot, in the ditch on the way home on foot, or some Uber driver who calls the police about a fare they had to dump in the driveway or something... or even a cop catching a whiff of ubermegacarfentanyl, getting narcan, and then getting back in their cruiser while a civilian can't/doesn't... but that's distinctly not what we're talking about.
WTF? I'm not "white knighting" anything. You are reading an awful lot into what I wrote that isn't there.
I don't think anyone is claiming that this guy wasn't DUI or doesn't deserve to do time for killing the other guy. Just that the new law is overreaction. The existing laws seem to handle the situation just fine. It's not as if the new law would have prevented him from getting behind the wheel again. Though I am kind of surprised they didn't arrest him when they found him passed out in his car. I've seen enough stories about people getting DUI charges for sleeping it off in a public parking lot.
In defense of the cops that found the guy it seems like their reaction was appropriate in the moment. They probably saved his life. But yeah he should have been charged before he could get behind the wheel again.
Then why the excessive hand wringing about how long the effects of narcan last? If you want to hate on the law for making already illegal stuff even more illegal, sure, that's an argument you can make. But no serious person is disputing that Shannon Walker was probably stoned out of his gourd when he drove over someone and his taking of narcan had nothing to do with how blitzed he was precisely because it wears off so quickly. The argument for this law (I myself am pretty neutral on it) is that if you've already OD'd and been saved by narcan, great for you... but maybe don't go operating heavy machinery for 24 hours. I'm 100% okay with people having their "right" to drive a car infringed for 24 hours after having their life saved for an opioid overdose. Even if you are taking opioids for entirely defensible reasons, you just had a close shave with death. Take a break.
George Harrison once described riding in a car with John Lennon, whilst both were on LSD, he described they were going really fast....the only problem was they were only going 15KM. LOL!
Drugs do the darndest things.
Yeah, I've driven on acid a few times. It's hard to keep going the right speed and I'm not really sure why. It takes two people to really pull it off. One needs to keep an eye on the speed limit and the vehicle speed and make sure you're not going too slow. The other needs to drive, obviously.
The article really makes the argument the wrong way. Narcan is used in emergency situations, often NOT in an emergency room. Often by people who may not know if the person is under the influence of a narcotic and have no way to verify that. I carry Narcan in my car and in my first aid bag. Because of the way Narcan works it is safe to give it to someone that is not having an overdose from narcotics. So, a first responder or even just good Samaritans that carries Narcan or is near a dispensary could end up administering it to someone that has some other issue. This law now makes that person in the eyes of the law under the influence, when they may not be.
As a hypothetical example, say someone donates blood. While donating blood they have been looking at other donors blood filling the bags. This has never been a problem in the past and so they leave the donation center and get in their car. They feel a little lightheaded but think maybe they stood to fast and pull away. A couple blocks away they are feeling really bad and pull over. shortly after they slump over behind the wheel of their car. A passerby notices them driving very slowly and in an odd manner, and upon investigation see’s the person slumped over behind the wheel. They happen to have Narcan and administer it. The person’s condition does not initially change but then comes back around. Police and EMT’s arrive because the bystander called 911. The person explains they just donated blood and felt a little dizzy and pulled over. After some rest and confirming with Red Cross it checks out. EMT’s say he is normal. As the person pulls away the police stop him and arrest him for driving under the influence. Why was he arrested, not for being under the influnce of any drugs that impair them, but because in the course of an emergency situation someone gave them Narcan.
Thank God this law is getting this mad blood donor off the street and protecting us. Someone genuinely needing Narcan due to an overdose who, then operates a motor vehicle while still under the influence of the narcotics, which is a very real possibility is still breaking the law. Narcan does not change that. But someone who was given Narcan out of an abundance of caution but was never under the influence is now suddenly deemed impaired for 24hrs.
The law:
For the purpose of proving a person violated state law relative to driving under the influence of an intoxicant, establishes that evidence that the person was suspected to be impaired secondary to the sedative or otherwise intoxicating effects of a controlled substance, and was administered within 24 hours prior to the time of the alleged violation, an opioid antagonist for an opioid-related overdose, creates a presumption that the defendant's ability to drive was sufficiently impaired by the controlled substance that caused the opioid-related overdose to constitute a violation of state law
This law doesn't appear to criminalize simply "driving after receiving Narcan". It requires 1) a violation within 24 hours and 2) suspicion of intoxication previously.
That says to me that "just because a person seems ok after receiving narcan, doesn't mean that they are, so if they commit an offense after the narcan, it can be used as evidence of continued intoxication".
So, you analogy fails because a person who gave blood (assuming an effort was made to corroborate, and a drug test was administered by EMT) was not presumed to have been intoxicated by an opioid. So, merely driving away is not reasonable suspicion for a stop immediately after.
That's not to say that, in the donor analogy, police wouldn't abuse this tool (as any other could be abused), but there's no way it would lead to a DUI conviction.
"the new law ... almost always is an overcorrection that creates more problems than it solves."
"But think of the JOBS in handling those problems!!" 8-(
I understand you do not like the new law. What is missing is your proposal instead. Or do you want to continue the way it was done in the past?
This new law is the typical knee-jerk reaction that gives the appearance of the government responding to a situation in the manner that it makes the polis look good in front of the public.
So any existing laws regarding DWI aren't enough to tackle the what's already been outlawed.
Sounds like double jeopardy to me but then what do I know about such laws, especially in that state.
In the mean time , be careful out there, you don't how many people are driving stoned, drunk or high let alone with no license, no insurance and no brains.
Oh, and get a dash cam. It could save you big bucks.
Prosecutors like the extra laws because they can shotgun charges and scare the person into pleading guilty to one charge.
“I think that the 24-hour limit is arbitrary,” says Jeffrey Singer, a practicing physician and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “It depends a great deal on the patient’s metabolism, kidney function, what other medications are in their system, and tolerance level.
Yea, well here’s the thing Joe – none of that is measurable at the time of harm caused. You know what is measurable? Whether you’ve had narcan in the last 24-hrs.
Yea, it’s absolutely arbitrary. Because sometimes laws have to be that way, and sometimes a very basic and easily understood standard is what helps everyone UNDERSTAND that law. Same with every speed limit that ends in 5 or 0. Why is 55 safe and 56 not?
In other words, if a person suspected of an opioid overdose is administered Narcan, then for the next 24 hours, there will now be a legal presumption that they are too impaired to drive. But is that good science?
No, it’s not good science. But it’s not based solely in science in the first place. It’s based in easily measurable and understood and communicated to the public at large. Why is the BAC limit 0.08 (in most places) instead of 0.09? How stoned is too stoned to be on the road after you’ve run someone down? Why should an intersection get a stop sign instead of a traffic light?
What you call “arbitrary” is us doing the best we can in the most least restrictive way possible. “Kredich was struck and killed less than an hour after Walker left the hospital.” And what are we talking about here? Heroin or Fentanyl. THAT’S what you’re defending with this idiocy. Heroin and fentanyl addicts. Behind the wheel.
Go to hell, Joe.
They use narcan to save your life. Because you took so many drugs you are dying.
Not driving for 24 hours seems like a pretty small price
Perhaps I would not vote for this law, but it seems not that out of scale that I would get wound up about it