IC § 9-13-2-86. Intoxicated.

“Intoxicated” means under the influence of:

(1) alcohol;

(2) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1);

(3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance;

(4) a substance described in IC 35-46-6-2 or IC 35-46-6-3;

(5) a combination of substances described in subdivisions (1) through (4); or

(6) any other substance, not including food and food ingredients (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-20), tobacco as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-28), or a dietary supplement (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-16);

so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person’s faculties.

– Case Law

– Δ was stopped at a checkpoint. The officers observed no violations of traffic laws and no evidence of any criminal activity. The officer asked Δ for his license, and Δ gave the officer the license. The officer noticed the “odor of an alcoholic beverage and could see a brown prescription bottle in the center console between the two front seats. . . the bottle appeared to contain plant material. [The officer] asked for [the defendant’s] registration. [The defendant] leaned to his right across the center console and reached with his left hand into the glove compartment. In the process, [the defendant] was covering the console with his right arm. [The defendant] handed the registration to [the officer]. [The officer] then asked [the defendant] if he had been drinking beer and he replied that he had. [The officer] next asked [the defendant] Irwin to get out of the car and he did. [The officer] shined his flashlight through the open door into the car and observed an overturned beer bottle on the floorboard in front of the driver’s seat. [The officer] then leaned through the open door into the car to pick up the beer bottle and found, under the front part of the driver’s seat, two plastic bags containing what later tests showed to be marijuana. [The officer] removed the beer bottle, the two plastic bags, and the prescription bottle from the car.” Irwin at 679. Δ was arrested for public intoxication. An inventory search revealed drugs. After being convicted of possession, Δ appealed, arguing that there was no probable cause for the arrest and the drugs should be suppressed.  For the sake of argument, the court assumed that the road block was not violation of the 4th Amendment or Article 1 § 11. The officer (1) smelled alcohol, (2) received an admission that Δ had consumed alcohol, (3) thought he saw plant material in the prescription bottle, and (4) thought he saw Δ trying to hide the prescription bottle. Based on these facts, there was no probable cause to believe that Δ was intoxicated or in possession of marijuana. Irwin v. State, 383 N.E.2d 1086 (Ind. App. 1978).

– A nonexpert witness may offer an opinion on intoxication. Atkins v. State, 451 N.E.2d 55, (Ind. App. 1983).

– Defendant’s conviction for public intoxication under prior version of IC 7.1-5-1-3, which required that intoxication be caused by use of alcohol or “controlled substance” as that term was defined by IC 35-48-1-9, required reversal, since defendant’s intoxication due to glue sniffing was not crime under the former version of statute. Upp v. State, 808 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

– Defendant’s conviction for public intoxication, IC 7.1-5-1-3, was supported by the evidence, as two officers testified that they smelled a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the interior of the car in which defendant was found and from defendant’s breath, defendant’s clothes were disheveled, and defendant was uncooperative, repeatedly telling the officers to talk to his attorney. Fought v. State, 898 N.E.2d 447, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 2611 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

– Defendant’s conviction for public intoxication was supported by the evidence; based upon the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from defendant, defendant’s demeanor, slurred speech, and bloodshot, watery, and glassy eyes, multiple officers testified that based upon their experience defendant was intoxicated. –Mathews v. State, 978 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

– Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of public intoxication under IC 7.1-5-1-3 because defendant was at a gas station and an officer observed that defendant’s speech was slurred, she was unsteady on her feet, and she was belligerent and uncooperative.  Pittman v. State, 971 N.E.2d 147, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

– Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for public intoxication because defendant had red and watery eyes, slurred speech, unsteady balance, and an odor of alcohol about his person; moreover, defendant was alarming others by walking toward them in an aggressive manner while yelling. Naas v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1151, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).


DISCLAIMER – The information contained on this website is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or as an offer to perform legal services on any subject matter. The content of this web site contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments or information. The information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or current. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information at this website or at any other website to which it is linked.  Recipients of content from this site should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in the site without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.  Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and shall not be construed as legal advice. This is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship. 


Mr cardella, was by far the best attorney, I’ve ever had, or dealt with my entire life.the communication is 2nd to none. I’ve had many attorneys thru my life for various needs and this was by far the easiest process I’ve had. These days most attorneys you have to call several times and when u reach or see them they seem to not pay attention to you or what you want, Jeff is not like the rest. Definitely hire Jeff cardella!!!

I found Jeff to be an excellent attorney. He is very reasonable and level headed, empathetic but not a pushover. He always answered our questions directly. Hiring him was a great decision. Highly recommend and would use his services again.

Jeff Rocks
Jeff demonstrated a great moral and positive character while working on my nephew’s case. He communicated promptly with my family as the case progressed and was easily accessible. We appreciated his honesty regarding the different scenarios and possible outcomes of the case. We were honor to have him as our attorney. Please do not hesitate to retain him, he will work diligently on your family behalf. We respected the fact he does a lot of the leg work himself.

I was thoroughly impressed with the service at Jeff Cardella Law Offices. One of the things that distinguished Mr. Cardella from some of the other law practices that I called was the level of care and customer service that was attached to our conversation. I called expecting to speak to a receptionist and was connected directly to him. Mr. Cardella took a true consultative approach to make sure that my needs was addressed specifically to my situation. I highly recommend giving the Cardella office a call.

My experience with Mr. Jeff Cardella was a positive experience since our first consult. He was reassuring and very reliable. I would recommend his services to everyone!

Great experience, helped me beat an undeserved ticket and allowed me to focus my time on my studies instead of dealing with it all myself. Would recommend to anyone.