Posted on 08/12/2005 11:36:01 AM PDT by Rodney King
McLEAN -- A Fairfax County judge has ruled that key components of Virginia's drunken-driving laws are unconstitutional, citing an obscure, decades-old U.S. Supreme Court decision that could prompt similar challenges nationwide.
Virginia's law is unconstitutional because it presumes that an individual with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 or higher is intoxicated, denying a defendant's right to a presumption of innocence, Judge Ian O'Flaherty ruled in dismissing charges against at least two alleged drunken drivers last month.
As a district judge, O'Flaherty's rulings do not establish any formal precedent, but word of the constitutional argument is spreading quickly among the defense bar. Every state has similar presumptions about intoxication at a 0.08 blood-alcohol level, so defense lawyers across the nation are likely to make similar arguments....
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
It happened to a friend of mine who was arrested for his 2nd DUI in 3 years. His life was a literal hell for the next 2 years. Immediate suspension of his license till his court date 6 months later, then another year of suspension followed by another 6 - 12 months of mandatory breating into some monitor they attached to his car. Mandatory AA meetings, mandatory weekly meetings with a psychologist, mandatory witnessing an autopsy at the county morgue of some 87 year old woman whose family was not informed of this. All these mandatory meetings and such are pretty darn difficult to do when one has no transportation. He had to sell his condo in Rochester Hills in order to rent an apartment across the street from his employer because he couldn't drive to work. Till that was accomplished, his son and his boss served as his daily chaufeurs to and from work.
Over $20,000 spent on fines and legal fees..........
The Oakland County judge was a female with a strong affiliation to MADD.......
If they were all experienced, good drivers, yes I would. I mean I'd feel about as safe as I normally feel when I'm on the road. Now teens and old people--sober--that's another story. They scare me. But so what? That doesn't give me the right to declare them criminals. I really don't think that how I feel is of any relevance at all. Laws based on fear generally cater to the most paranoid among us rather than to rational adults. For the most part, I tend to disapprove of crime and punishment that's based on nothing but feelings and statistics. I think that what's in a person's mind should be considered as a possible aggravating factor when determining punishment for an actual crime. I almost never would consider the state of a person's mind to be a crime in and of itself. And I do mean mind, not blood, since the correlation between blood content and skill is far from 1:1.
MADD has essentially become a temperance organization.
' When I drive I assume that everyone on the road is a drunken suicidal illegal alien with no drivers license and no insurance. IOW I don't trust that anyone on the road is an experienced good driver. They are all idiots and they prove it every day.
I would only hope that the guy next to me (or the idiot that is tailgating me) thinks I am a drunken suicidal illegal alien with no drivers' license and no insurance as well. The problem is that there are people out there that really think that I know how to drive and that I can read their minds.
Driving a car is the single most dangerous thing a human being does on a daily basis, yet most drivers take it for granted. We don't need to increase that risk by turning a blind eye to the guy who deliberately impairs his ability to drive by drinking a couple of beers before hopping into a 2 ton deadly weapon and pointing it at me or my children.
Some sobering facts:
Its the equivalent of two fully loaded airliners crashing each and every week of the year.
ratio of baby/toddler deaths (alchohol related automobile crashes) to baby/toddler deaths (all causes) = 1:200
ratio of annual alchohol crash fatalities to gun fatalities = 16:10
1 alchohol related death (all causes) /33 minutes
1 alchohol related injury (all causes) /3 minutes
Statistically, if one wears their seat belt each and every time they operate an automobile, the likelihood of being injured at least once during one's driving career is virtually certain. Failing to accomplish this each and every time one drives, not only is the potential severity of that one guaranteed injury accident much greater, but the likelihood of multiple injurious accidents is also nearly certain.
On any arbitrary weekday a number equivalent to 10% of the population of any arbitrary city are considered to be intoxicated while operating their motor vehicles on public roadways (the number being much higher from sundown Friday to Monday morning and on holidays). This number does not include boaters, personal water craft operators or airplane pilots (commercial or private).
3/5 of ALL people during their lives will be involved in an alchohol related crash (all causes, all circumstances).
After their first alcohol related traffic infraction, most drivers in retrospect will acknowledge having been intoxicated behind the wheel an estimated 2000 (on average) times.
I agree. However, the MADD maniacs want to eliminate drinking period, instead of drunk driving. They are so far from their mission that their founder disassociated herself with them.
One-size-fits-all laws are the lazy way out.
Where were you when I was single?
bttt
The problem is, you have no idea if I am or not.
IMO, this is not justifiable, legally or morally.
Can you source these stats? Some are pretty obviously off the wall. I doubt anyone here can claim that ALL of their no dead relatives and friends had been involved in at least 1 injury accident.
But God has entrusted those kids to your care. May God help them.
Nothing could be finer than reality based law and enforcement.
Do you not have windows media player?
Same here. That's just defensive driving. But it in no way reflects reality. It's pretend.
the guy who deliberately impairs his ability to drive by drinking a couple of beers before hopping into a 2 ton deadly weapon
You're begging the question. Prove the impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, don't just assume it.
Mac G4.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.