Read alcohol drug fatigue illness and medication factors

By Jacob Alford

Separate the condition from its effect on driving and its contribution to the crash. Drinking is not the same reporting entry as intoxication. An illness, medication, fatigue or disability must be connected to what happened rather than used as a shortcut to blame. Code 45 has a special May Have Contributed instruction and should not be paired with 67 for the same driver.

Questions this group helps answer:

• Why is had been drinking in the uncertain-contribution column?
• How is alcohol consumption different from intoxication?
• Can an arrest or positive test leave causation unresolved?
• Does prescribed medication automatically make a driver at fault?
• What evidence supports fatigue or a sudden illness?
• How should a disability-related entry be explained respectfully?

40. Fatigued or asleep

Meaning in the report: Exhaustion or weariness caused sleep or reduced mental activity that impaired perception or reaction and contributed.

What needs explaining: Connect fatigue or sleep to impaired driving, not simply to a late hour or long day. Are there admissions, witness observations, duty schedules, travel history or data supporting fatigue?

Limits and qualifications: The code itself is not a diagnosis or a finding that a commercial hours-of-service rule was violated.

Sources: TxDOT definition, page 139.

Further care: Do not infer a medical diagnosis or violation solely from fatigue. For an actual commercial-vehicle case, separate applicable safety/hours-of-service rules would need their own review.

45. Had been drinking

Meaning in the report: The investigator believes a driver, pedestrian or cyclist consumed alcohol but was not intoxicated.

What needs explaining: The manual directs this code to the May Have Contributed section and says not to use it with code 67 for the same driver. What supports alcohol consumption, and is the causal connection unresolved?

Limits and qualifications: It does not mean intoxication, a DWI conviction or confirmed crash causation.

Coding note and related law: No statute is cited. Manual says investigator believes alcohol was consumed but not to an intoxicated extent; show this in May Have Contributed, and do not pair 45 and 67 for one driver.

Sources: TxDOT definition, page 140; Penal §49.01(1)–(2) (related provision); Penal §49.04(a) (related provision); Penal §49.02(a)–(b) (related provision).

Further care: Not a numerical BAC category. Statutory intoxication can be impaired normal faculties below 0.08; alcohol consumption alone does not establish DWI or public intoxication.

46. Handicapped driver

Meaning in the report: The printed code refers to a physical disability that contributed to the crash.

What needs explaining: A causal connection is required and the narrative must explain it. What actual limitation affected the driving task at the relevant moment?

Limits and qualifications: The printed label is preserved here for lookup. Disability alone is neither unsafe driving nor proof of contribution; identify the actual functional effect supported by evidence.

Sources: TxDOT definition, page 140.

47. Ill

Meaning in the report: A physical or mental illness contributed to the crash.

What needs explaining: Explain the relevant condition and causal role in the narrative. What symptoms occurred, when did they arise and what evidence supports their effect?

Limits and qualifications: A diagnosis alone does not establish causation, foreseeability or legal responsibility.

Sources: TxDOT definition, page 140.

Further care: Do not infer causation merely from a diagnosis or symptoms; no offense is specified by this factor.

62. Taking medication

Meaning in the report: Prescription or over-the-counter medication contributed to the crash.

What needs explaining: The current definition expressly requires contribution and directs the officer to identify the medication in the narrative. What medication, timing, effect and supporting evidence connect it to impaired driving?

Limits and qualifications: Lawful medication use by itself does not establish impairment or fault; avoid stigmatizing necessary treatment.

Coding note and related law: The manual supplies no statute; it requires the medication to contribute, not mere use. The related Penal Code §49.01(2)(A) addresses loss of normal faculties due to drugs or combinations, and §49.10 says lawful entitlement to use the substance is not a defense to the listed intoxication offenses.

Sources: TxDOT definition, page 141; Penal §49.01(2)(A) (related provision); Penal §49.04(a) (related provision); Penal §49.10 (related provision).

Further care: Prescribed or over-the-counter medication use alone does not establish intoxication, unsafe operation or an offense. Record supported causal effects rather than assume them from a medication name.

67. Intoxicated alcohol

Meaning in the report: Alcohol intoxication of a driver, pedestrian or cyclist contributed.

What needs explaining: The definition requires contribution and excludes simultaneous code 45 for the same driver. The manual’s example places intoxication in May Have Contributed when causation is unresolved, despite arrest. It also flags TRACE notification to TABC for alcohol involvement with suspected serious or fatal injury. What supports intoxication, and what separately supports its role in the crash?

Limits and qualifications: Intoxication, arrest, criminal guilt and causal responsibility are distinct questions. The factor can also concern a pedestrian; the DWI offense has separate vehicle-operation and other elements.

Coding note and related law: No statute is cited by the manual. The related Penal Code §49.01(1), (2) defines concentration and intoxication, including loss of normal mental/physical faculties or alcohol concentration 0.08 or more. §49.04(a) separately requires intoxication while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Sources: TxDOT definition, page 142; Penal §49.01(1)–(3) (related provision); Penal §49.04(a) (related provision); Penal §32.34(a)(2) (related provision); Penal §1.07(a)(40) (related provision); Penal §49.02(a)–(b) (related provision).

Further care: The factor is an investigator’s causal opinion, not a DWI conviction. It applies in the manual to drivers, pedestrians and pedalcyclists. The DWI motor-vehicle definition differs from Transportation Code §541.201. Penal Code §49.01(3) imports the broader §32.34(a)(2); classification of a particular nonstandard device requires its own legal analysis. A pedestrian condition alone does not prove vehicle operation. Below 0.08 does not rule out loss-of-faculties intoxication. 45 and 67 are mutually exclusive for one driver under the manual.

68. Intoxicated drug

Meaning in the report: A driver, pedestrian or cyclist was under a drug’s influence and that contributed.

What needs explaining: Establish the relevant influence and causal connection. What test, observations, timing or other evidence supports impairment at the time?

Limits and qualifications: Drug presence or medication use alone does not establish the criminal intoxication elements or crash causation.

Coding note and related law: No statute is cited by the manual. The related Penal Code §49.01(2)(A) requires loss of normal mental/physical faculties due to a controlled substance, drug, dangerous drug, combination or other substance. §49.04(a) adds operating a motor vehicle in a public place for DWI.

Sources: TxDOT definition, page 142; Penal §49.01(2)–(3) (related provision); Penal §49.04(a) (related provision); Penal §49.10 (related provision); Penal §32.34(a)(2) (related provision); Penal §1.07(a)(40) (related provision); Penal §49.02(a)–(b) (related provision).

Further care: The manual’s under the influence shorthand must not be equated to mere ingestion, a positive drug result, or all offense elements. There is no general 0.08-style drug threshold in §49.01. Lawful/prescribed use does not by itself defeat an intoxication prosecution under §49.10, but consumption by itself does not establish one. DWI uses the Penal Code definition of motor vehicle, which differs from the Transportation Code definition.

Attorney reviewed by Jacob Alford · November 11, 2026