Charges dropped against driver in fatal Vancouver crash
VANCOUVER, Wash. – Manslaughter charges were dropped against a man who was arrested on Monday after a deadly crash that killed a man crossing the street in Vancouver.
Police said 47-year-old Scotty Rowles admitted after the crash that he had earlier been smoking marijuana. Prosecutors said Rowles was originally arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter.
One of Rowles' family members said despite smoking earlier in the day, he was not impaired when he got behind the wheel.
On Wednesday, Clark County prosecutors said after reviewing the case, they decided to drop the charge against Rowles. The prosecutors concluded that further investigation was needed, a spokesperson said.
Rowles is currently not being held on any charges, although the investigation is still open.
Prosecutors also said despite what a police news release said, Rowles was never charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants.
62-year-old Donald Collins of Vancouver was killed in the crash. Police said he stepped off a median to cross E. Mill Plain Blvd when he was hit.
The pedestrian was clearly at fault.
When this first happned there were so many responses to the fact that he admitted he had smoked ealier in the day. I was at the scene literally minutes after the accident. I was advocating that we keep an open mind. It was a dark night. The pedestrian was crossing illegally and wearing dark clothing. There was a car in the number one lane blocking his vision - that car had to suddenly slam on his brakes to avoid hitting the guy. There are bushes in the median. Add it all up and it looks like an accident that could have been avoided had the pedestrian used the crosswalks - there is one at the intersection and one further down to the west.
Â
Having witnessed the scene just after the accident it appeast this case was less about the fact that the driver had smoked something at some point during the day than it was about the guy crossing the steet in an unsafe manner.
When you step off the median and into traffic, it is perfectly acceptable to assume you'll be hit by a car. Whether or not the driver is impaired or not. Some of the blame can be squarely put on the pedestrian plebe.
So they found that even though he admitted smoking Earlier, that he was Not Impaired at the time of the accident. Until they come out with an actual impairment test this will the normal outcome in a case like this. The burden of proof is on the State and this will be difficult until they can scientifically determine the level of impairment from Mj. In the mean time People use common sense when you toke and do not drive.
So what if they did find evidence of THC in his blood?
Â
I suspect the real reason, or at least part of it, is that the prosecutor didn't bring charges is that he doesn't want to be the first to charge a driver with manslaughter under the new Washington laws. As I understand it, the law now defines 5ng/ml level of THC as being intoxicated, but that his level is a bit arbitrary and not strongly defensible with scientific studies.
Â
The first conviction based on that statute and will probably get challenged in a big, messy appeal, with all sorts of outside influence and funding. No doubt the Feds, the marijuana lobby, every medical marijuana dispenser and user in the country, and the as-yet unformed marijuana growers association will get involved with testimony, studies and money. If I were the prosecutor, I'd let someone else break all that legal ground.
Â
When marijuana was illegal, this was much easier. Any level other than 0.00 meant you were guilty of illegal consumption of a hallucinogen, and therefore legally impaired.
Â
Â
 @al_02Â
Four things.
Â
1 - The amount of THC chosen by the state to define 'intoxicated' under the law may not be the best researched number. My personal opinion is that the number we're using now likely needs valid research before we can really depend on it. Considering marijuana can be detected up to 30 days after you last smoke, we need to be a little careful on this question. As I understand it, previous to the WA law, impairment had to be proven. At least now they use a test for a number defined by law. In the end, that may or may not be valid. After all, we started with a certain BAC for alcohol intoxication and that number has changed over time.
Â
2 - I find it more than a little hard to believe that a prosecutor would decide not to prosecute based on the idea that this is the first case. That is a preposterous notion. It seems to me that you're ignoring the fact that, sitting here reading this article, we have no way to know this case would be the first prosecution for DUII marijuana. There are areas outside of Vancouver where this could have happened and we may not have read about it. Did you not get the message of 'object permanence'?
Â
3 - See issue number 1. Driving under the influence should have some definitions that is founded in researched. Using your logic, what about prescription drugs? That would mean that anyone who had taken a drug like Vicodin, Oxycontin, etc would be guilty of DUII - and I am not saying they're not DUII. I am saying we may not have clearly defined standards for every drug. Don't forget marijuana was prescribed medically before the Washington law that legalized it. I am thinking the issue is more complicated than saying  anything over 0.00 is 'impaired'.
Â
4 - I am guessing you have never smoked marijuana if you're calling it a hallucinogen. In spite of years trying, I have never hallucinated on pot. Not once.Maybe I need some of what you're smoking.Then, like you, it would be 'reality, stage right'.....
Â
It could be that dropping these charges is the right thing to do.Sometimes accidents happen when people walk in front of oncoming traffic.
Â
 @al_02 So someone who smoked two day beforehand would, by your definition, make him intoxicated even though he would be sober? Moron.
 @Travis Waldera OK Genius, but before you start hurling insults you might want to read a little more carefully. The discussion is about the LEGAL definition of intoxicated under current Washington law.
    I never stated my definition.
 @al_02 Have you read the law? It is still illegal to drive while under the influence of any level of MJ.Â
 @3bed2bath1baby Yes, I have read it. Have you?  http://www.washingtondui.com/seattle-marijuana-dui-lawyer/wa-drug-dui-attorney
Â
If he wasn't under the influence that just makes it worse.
@PDXguy23 Makes what worse? The fact that someone died? The fact that he hit someone? The fact that he was charged and everyone condemned him before the facts were known?
Â
I know that, for me, I would NEVER get over this if I were him.
How about, the state of Washington, will find some volunteer drivers from the pot lovers, let them smoke  a joint and more and than  test them for driver's reaction time after an hour, two, four, eight. One would say, only than you can establish a law, if any. Instead, they are looking for federal guidelines. There won't be  any, the feds are against it.
Washington state is about to rake millions from the sales of pot. Than the state should protect itself, correct?
Â
 @faith *then, not than.
 @faith the bill specified that some of the taxes will go toward a Washington study on impairment.
@faith  It's a fallacy that WA state will make millions on the legalization of pot. The bill was written so poorly, and the taxation of sales will make it cost prohibitive to sell legally. So, the black market and illegal drug dealers will flourish. Nothng will change other than the recreational smoker can do so legally.
@wondering Your concept on the issue of tax revenue is far from having been proven. Considering the fact that people in the black market now will see profits drop, they may choose to stop growing and selling illegally entirely or become part of the legalized system. Given the chance to do things leagally, you never know. This is all new territory.
Â
I am sure people made the same argument at the end of the prohibition of alcohol.
Okay, "Beam me up Scotty" hopefully I won't be in your way next time you are on the road and are really wasted. Lucky loser!
 @The Resistance Vancouver Police have a well-known bounty on any DUI - just ask a judge. Scotty Rowles and I go back to the 80's and early 90's and I cannot remember how many times I arrested him for wagging his weeny and being a peeping tom, but he never lied to me and was never violent. I saw the latest in the local rag and when I saw that VPD was involved I knew there would be problems with the arrest. VPD has no idea how to factually charge this skel and I have it on good authority from the County having worked there that VPD was dissuaded from pursuing it based on the physical evidence at the scene. Scotty gets to live with what happened for the rest of his miserable life, but right is right no matter who you are...
 @boned  @The Resistance Which judge? The one(s) who've had their own run-ins with the law for DUII? Oh, wait, that's right. He was voted out....
I see a lot of people are blaming KATU and other news stations, but if you read the story, it was the information from the police that was incorrect. The news media was going by the information given to them by the police, which you would expect to be correct. It's the police department and their news release that was the problem.
 @Jenni S. You would, but should you?
 @Jenni S. Please expect less from Vancouver Police Department, OK??
While I doubt there will be much publicity over this new information I hope it will serve as another reminder (as if there were not enough) of the media's intent to sensationalize and obfuscate issues for those of us who do not want to think or work to hard to understand certain issues. I still believe the drivers' actions to be wreckless and thoughtless (he had pot with him and admited to smoking it earlier) but they are overshadowed by an even dumber, more careless pedestrian. Mr Rowles now gets to live with the consequences of this situation. Hopefully pedestrians and pot smokers will consider their actions a little more seriously before leaving the house next time.
 @33 Better said by you than me since I know Scotty and was a sheriff in this county and have zero respect for Vancouver Police Department since they have a bounty on anything/anyone that looks DUI...
Hey KATU News! How about issuing a formal RETRACTION? Your headline earlier this week stated that the driver was HIGH ON MARIJUANA. This was clearly not the case. Recreational use of marijuana is now legal in Washington. How about giving the new law a fair chance?Â
 @Kimchi McGee You can still be high on marijuana even if it is legal (the same with prescription drugs). From what I can tell, they're not going to charge him with DUI/DUII unless his blood tests show it is necessary, But it's starting to look like just an accident - pedestrian stepped out into the road without giving adequate reaction time for the driver. While peds do have the right-of-way in many situations, you can't just step out in front of a car.
 @Jenni S. The blood test will tell them nothing. Where are you getting all your information on guns and ganja?? Just curious because you need to find another source other than the Left Wing Liberal rags and your Volvo driving friends that have been brainwashed...
Actually, where are you getting the idea that a blood test will NOT tell them anything about the THC content in his bloodstream and as to whether it was a legal amount or not? While there is a lot of debate as to the actual amounts that cause impairment, the test will show whether this jacka* will be guilty of a DUI.
Good news for this man and his family. I knew everyone was making conjectures on minimal information. My condolences to the deceased man's family...but this turned out to be the right thing to do.
Hope the retraction makes national news like the false accusation did.
 @Lips Ain't going to happen and the brainwashed still believe Scotty Rowels is a very bad man and deserves to be in prison.
"Prosecutors also said despite what a police news release said, Rowles was never charged with driving under the influence of intoxicants." Â Â (from the story)
Â
Looks as though the initial ~ incorrect ~ information came from the police news release...so KATU was probably going from that... the DA's office has apparently corrected the information; sadly, after it was already written up in the media and hit the Internet...Â
I would say that, if the police mistakenly put that statement (that Mr Rowles had been charged with DUII) in their new release, they should be the FIRST ones to apologize to Mr Rowles. Â Â
Given the new legislation and the apparent "inflammatory" nature of anything having to do with MJ, it probably would be a wise idea if the media would do a little double-checking before running headlines and articles like that... just a thought, folks...
KATU, You might want to make an apology, I think that there might be defamation of Character and I know what I posted, but I was going on what you wrote. and I can apologize for that. But you Have a greater responsibility to the community. and to Mr Rowels.
So if you sensationalized this one story how many other have sensationalized?
@lee986321 Any having to do with firearms, police doing anything wrong or with force, and hippy protesters.
KATU clearly owes Mr. Rowles an apology for that trash of an article they posted yesterday. Â I recall the headline: Â "Driver high on marijuana kills pedestrian in Vancouver" Â Â Openly implying the recent legalization of pot is to blame. Â KATU has an agenda here. Â Journalism should be un-biased and fair at the very least. Â Even though that is an impossible thing achieve these days.
Â
Yeah. Â He was stoned alright. Â So much so that he was NEVER charged in the first place. Â But KATU had no problem throwing his name out there and trying him in the court of the media.....
Â
I hope he sues the pants of you KATU. Â Shameful reporting.
Looks like KATU sensationalized an article for some reason.Â
Â
If this is true, you guys are slippin'.
Shouldn't that headline read:
Charges dropped against POTHEAD in fatal Vancouver crash.
Â
KATU must be cleaning up their act.
 @Mipsfer Or, as the Drudge headline went: "Driver High on Marijuana Mows Down Pedestrian." Does anybody believe that butt-cheek, Drudge, is going to offer an apology or a retraction?
OH, WAIT, WHAT?!  So much for Death to the Stoner. He was never charged, but he was named in the media for to be judged, defamed and pilloried by the community because it turns out he smoked pot that day.
Â
According to the US Census Bureau, in 2009 about 9,900 drunk drivers were involved in fatal accidents, but this guy is being called a "doper" and a "murderer" in national news. Innocent Unless The Media Paints You Otherwise.
Â
Â
It's making better sense now! Even with an admission of some type, which I commend Scotty Rowles for doing given the circumstances, the testing at this time is not even close to being worth a conviction for someone driving responsibly while some knothead dressed in black hop, skips, jumps, twirls and double flip flops underneath a car at night between two crosswalks. NOT IN A CROSSWALK, between two well lit crosswalks!
So police release a news release that says he was arrested on DUII charges. But he really wasn't.
Â
Is this a right hand, left hand thing?
 @RalphCramden Seems like it. And manslaughter was never on the police releases (at least not the ones here at KATU or the ones I saw on the Columbian -- unless they were updated). So, with further investigation it seems like the DUII *might* still be a possibility after toxicology tests come back.
 @RalphCramden You were a cop. What's your take, Ralph?
"One of Rowles' family members said despite smoking earlier in the day, he was not impaired when he got behind the wheel."
Â
Expert testimony from an impartial observer one presumes?
 @xilef regnu At least as accurate as any field testing for an impaired driver that smoked a little at some point of the day. At least Scotty Rowles was being honest about himself and taking responsibility.Â
 @xilef regnu No presumptions here. Speaking from experience (no expert...just 30+ years of inhaling), having smoked some of the most potent strains out there, much of the effects that affect driving wears off after an hour or so, no matter how many hits I've taken. It's not like alcohol where there is a residual buzz that affects motor skills long after the last drink was downed depending on total amount imbibed.
Â
Oh, in the 30+ years I've been driving, I've never been in an accident and have only one ticket for speeding (speedometer was broken).
Told you so, control, authority freaks. Pedestrians must yield to vehicles when not in crosswalks. Does not matter if the driver is impaired.
YES! Â