Driving after the intake of narcotic or psychotropic substances raises doubts that a simple positive result does not resolve: does impairment at the time of the check still matter? Is a trace attributable to distant consumption sufficient for the crime? What is the difference between a preliminary test and a toxicological analysis?
In this guide I want to help you distinguish between consumption, possible effect and criminal evidence. I will explain how Article 187 of the Highway Code has changed, what interpretation the Constitutional Court gave in 2026, how the checks are carried out and what consequences may arise from refusal. We will also see why the type of sample, the time of the sampling and the quantity detected can profoundly modify the evaluation.
The rule applicable after the 2024 reform
Since December 14, 2024, Article 187 no longer indicates the state of psychopsychical impairment as an express element of the crime. Law no. 177 of November 25, 2024 rewrote the provision, which now punishes driving following the intake of narcotic or psychotropic substances. The text and procedures can be consulted in Article 187 of the Highway Code on Normattiva.
The amendment does not punish every past consumption. A purely chronological reading would also include those who drive when the effects of the substance have certainly ended. The Constitutional Court excluded this interpretation, because the crime protects traffic safety and does not serve to criminally penalize consumption as such.
For events prior to December 14, 2024, the discipline in force at the time of the conduct remains decisive, read according to the rules on the succession of criminal laws. The previous formulation required proof of actual psychophysical impairment caused by the substance. The date of the check is therefore essential and the new text cannot be applied automatically to a previous conduct.
Remote consumption, current impairment and danger to driving
Sentence no. 10 of 2026 declared the questions regarding the reform unfounded, but only on the basis of a restrictive interpretation. To establish liability, it must be proven that the conduct created a danger to traffic: normally this requires an assessment close to driving and a substance that, by quality and quantity, is still potentially capable of affecting normal vehicle control abilities. The principle is explained in the Constitutional Court sentence no. 10 of 2026.
Concrete impairment does not need to be proven as in the past. It is not always necessary to prove, through outward symptoms, that the driver was swaying, speaking with difficulty or driving abnormally. However, scientific evidence suitable for temporally linking consumption to driving and showing a possible ongoing influence is needed.
Consequently, a positive result does not always have the same meaning. The presence of metabolites alone, a sample capable of documenting even dated consumptions or quantities not compatible with enduring effects may not be sufficient. Conversely, sampling close to driving, the presence of the active substance in an appropriate biological matrix and scientifically significant concentrations can support the accusation even without obvious outward manifestations.
There is no single legislative threshold comparable to the values provided for alcohol. The evaluation depends on the specific substance, quantity, sample type and applicable toxicological knowledge. The absence of a general threshold does not, however, allow considering any trace detectable in the laboratory as criminally relevant.
How checks are carried out
Preliminary screening
Road traffic police authorities can perform non-invasive qualitative tests, including through portable devices. These checks serve to acquire elements that justify subsequent assessments. A positive preliminary result does not coincide with definitive proof of the crime and must be distinguished from forensic toxicological analysis.
The transition to analytical assessment is possible when the preliminary test is positive or there is a different reasonable ground to believe that the driver is still under the influence of the substance. For example, driving behavior, conditions observed during the check, what happened in an accident and other elements concretely described by the officers may assume relevance.
Oral fluid and biological samples
The discipline favors analysis on oral cavity fluid samples, taken in compliance with privacy and physical integrity. The analyses must be performed by certified laboratories according to methods used in forensic toxicological assessments. This phase must allow identifying the substance and providing useful data on the temporal proximity of consumption.
If the oral sample cannot be taken, or the driver refuses it, the police can accompany them to an authorized healthcare facility for the collection of biological fluids. In the event of an accident, facilities already providing treatment may perform the assessments requested by the police, compatibly with healthcare and rescue needs.
What happens while awaiting the result
If the analysis is not immediately available but the preliminary check is positive, the driving licence may be withdrawn until the outcome and in any case for no more than ten days. The driver cannot continue driving; if no other suitable person can drive, the vehicle is transported to the indicated place or to a garage, with expenses charged to the interested party.
When the analysis cannot be carried out, a positive preliminary result does not automatically transform into criminal evidence. However, immediate interruption of driving and the medical examination ordered by the prefect within sixty days remain possible. Criminal proceedings, precautionary measures on the licence and verification of driving fitness are distinct plans, even if they originate from the same check.
Refusal of the test is an autonomous crime
Refusing the assessments indicated by Article 187 may constitute a distinct crime from driving after consumption. The provision encompasses the refusal of preliminary tests, analytical assessment on oral fluid and the samplings provided at healthcare facilities. Refusal therefore does not avoid criminal consequences and may make it impossible to dispute the scientific result that would have emerged from the test.
Punizability nevertheless presupposes a legitimate request, coming from the competent authority and formulated under the conditions provided by law. Real physical impossibility, a contrary medical indication or a request unrelated to the procedure do not automatically equate to a refusal. Concrete conduct matters: dissent can also result from unequivocal behavior, not just a formal statement.
Article 187, paragraph 8, refers to the sanctions of Article 186, paragraph 7, of the Highway Code: a fine from 1,500 to 6,000 euros, arrest from six months to one year and suspension of the driving licence from six months to two years, in addition to the vehicle consequences provided by the rule. The prefect also orders the medical examination and precautionary suspension until the review examination.
Penalties, suspension, revocation and confiscation
For the crime provided by Article 187, paragraph 1, the penalty is a fine from 1,500 to 6,000 euros together with arrest from six months to one year. The finding of the crime is followed by the suspension of the driving licence from one to two years. If the vehicle belongs to an unrelated person, it is not confiscated, but the duration of the licence suspension is doubled.
Upon conviction or plea bargaining, the confiscation of the vehicle is ordered, unless it belongs to an unrelated third party. The licence is always revoked in case of recidivism within three years and for certain professional categories indicated by Article 186-bis. Increased penalties are provided for young drivers, novice drivers and professional categories subject to stricter rules.
An accident sharply aggravates the position. If the driver causes an accident under criminally relevant conditions, the penalties of Article 187 are doubled and the licence is, as a rule, revoked. If the accident results in serious, very serious injuries or the death of a person, further crimes may come into play, with constituent elements and more severe consequences to be kept separate from the base misdemeanor.
The fine also increases when the act is committed between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The set of effects can be reconstructed in Law no. 177 of 2024 published in the Official Gazette. It is important not to confuse provisional roadside withdrawal, prefettural precautionary suspension and the accessory sanction applied after the finding of the crime.
Guarantees during samplings and analyses
When sampling or analysis is performed as an investigative act, the driver must be informed of the right to be assisted by a defense counsel, according to the rules of urgent acts provided by Article 356 of the code of criminal procedure and Article 114 of the implementation provisions. The operation, however, must not be delayed to await the lawyer's arrival when the passage of time may compromise the result.
The hypothesis where the sample was independently taken by healthcare personnel for therapeutic purposes is different. In this case, any use of the medical report in criminal proceedings does not necessarily coincide with sampling ordered by the police. If instead the officers request a specific sample or additional analysis for investigative purposes, the guarantees proper to that act must be considered.
The report does not exhaust verification. What matters are the time of driving and sampling, the analyzed matrix, the active substance or metabolites alone, the quantitative data, the method used, the identification and conservation of the sample, and the toxicological interpretation. An apparently positive check can take on a different meaning when these elements are read together.
Even documented therapeutic use of a medicine containing psychotropic substances does not automatically exclude Article 187. The prescription clarifies the reason for intake, dose and times, but the criminal point remains the possible influence on driving. At the same time, the lawfulness of therapy and road liability do not coincide and must be evaluated without automatisms.
What options to consider after the check
The first distinction concerns the nature of the result. A positive portable test, a healthcare certification and a complete forensic analysis do not have the same value. If the crime is contested, it is useful to keep the reports, the medical report, documentation on any therapy followed and any data on times. These elements are enough to understand whether the evidence concerns remote consumption or possible influence still present.
Contesting does not mean denying laboratory data. The issue may concern the scientific meaning of that data: is the quantity capable of producing effects? Does the sample allow temporally placing consumption? Were active substances or only metabolic products sought? Do the timing and methods of sampling make the link with driving reliable?
When the evidence is usable and legal conditions are present, alternative procedural solutions can also be considered. Outside the accident hypothesis provided by paragraph 1-bis, the judge can substitute the penalty with community service. Successful completion extinguishes the crime, halves licence suspension and determines the revocation of confiscation; this possibility can be granted only once.
Frequently asked questions
Is being positive to a substance enough to be convicted?
No, any positivity is not enough. Following Constitutional Court sentence no. 10 of 2026, it is necessary to prove a presence close to driving which, by substance, quantity and biological matrix, is generally suitable for producing an effect potentially impacting driving ability. A remote trace or one devoid of this meaning is not automatically sufficient.
Do I have to appear visibly impaired for Article 187 to apply?
An evident symptom is not indispensable. The reform no longer requires proof of concrete impairment provided by the old text. However, the prosecution must prove danger through scientific data on possible ongoing influence. Driving conduct and conditions observed by officers can strengthen or weaken this reconstruction.
Can I refuse the portable test and accept only hospital sampling?
Refusing the test provided by law can be criminally relevant. Article 187, paragraph 8, also encompasses preliminary assessments. It is therefore unwise to consider one test freely substitutable with another. It remains possible to subsequently contest the lawfulness of the request, check methods and reliability of results.
Is the driving licence suspended before the conclusion of the trial?
Yes, measures prior to judgment may intervene. Pending analyses, the licence can be withdrawn for a maximum of ten days; upon outcomes provided by law, the prefect can then order a medical examination and precautionary suspension. These measures differ from suspension applied as an accessory sanction after the finding of the crime.
Is community service always possible?
No, it requires precise conditions. Article 187 allows it outside the hypothesis where the driver caused the accident contemplated by paragraph 1-bis and it can be used only once. It is not an acquittal: it substitutes the penalty and, if successfully performed, entails the extinguishment of the crime and further effects established by law.
How to orient yourself after a contestation
A contestation for driving after substance use cannot be understood by reading only the word positive on the report. The core is the link between result and driving: elapsed time, examined sample, active substance, quantity and potential capacity to affect vehicle control.
If you need to evaluate a report, a toxicological report, a licence measure or a charge of refusal, you can contact me. We will be able to distinguish administrative effects from criminal proceedings and identify which elements are truly decisive in your situation.