DUI law ruled unconstitutional

TimesDispatch.com ^ | today | Matthew Bakarat

[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....

[misterrob]

Or how about the soccer Mom with three kids in the back seat tending to their whining and talking on the cell phone while driving....

Worse than a drunk driver with kids in the car in my book

[Rodney King]

Ya, sad huh?

Not sad at all. If I was like you, I could probably save 200 bucks a month on alcohol.

[Abathar]

"Not sad at all. If I was like you, I could probably save 200 bucks a month on alcohol."

If I have more than 3 or 4 drinks a year it means its been a really really good year, or a really really bad one. The day after I turned 21 I stopped drinking, it took all the fun out of it.

[Capt. Jake]

Very curious decision. Certainly the law would be enforceable if it prohibited driving with a BAL of .08 or higher. That involves no presumption of drunkenss. Simply a bright-line test. One could argue whether the law was reasonable or not as a legislative matter, but there would be no reason to declare it unconstitutional save judicial activism.

[stylin19a]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=307


I don't see it.

[tfecw]

I wouldn't take my chances with 4 beers in an hour and a Breathalyzer. The wheel says we're good to go, but I learned that .08 is closer to 2-3 beers. I also realize the amount of misinformation floating around out there, so who knows.

[Moral Hazard]

There's an inherent problem in making these laws based upon the risk of causing an accident.

Consider, hypothetically, if having a .10 blood alcohol level makes you 10 times as likely to cause a fatal accident per mile driven as having no alcohol in your blood.

Person A has a blood alcohol level of .10, drives 1 mile.
Person B has a blood alcohol level of .00, drives 20 miles.

Person B is twice as likely to cause a fatal accident, but it's person A that is committing the crime. Fun!

[Rodney King]

Very curious decision. Certainly the law would be enforceable if it prohibited driving with a BAL of .08 or higher. That involves no presumption of drunkenss. Simply a bright-line test. One could argue whether the law was reasonable or not as a legislative matter, but there would be no reason to declare it unconstitutional save judicial activism.

I was kind of wondering about that as well. It seems like they can tell you not to drive based upon all sorts of criteria. Why not .08 BAC? I am not advocating that. I think it's a stupid law. But I was wondering about the basis for the decision.

[big'ol_freeper]

Ping

[Sloth]

Rather than out getting the bad guys, they have decided to make criminals of us all by lowering the threshold of what constitutes criminal behavior.

No, they haven't made criminals of us all -- just those of you who drink & drive.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Rather than out getting the bad guys, they have decided to make criminals of us all by lowering the threshold of what constitutes criminal behavior.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


YOU are on target, hit the nail on the head, scored, a winner, cooking with gas.

Keep it up guy. they will love you for it.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Rather than out getting the bad guys, they have decided to make criminals of us all by lowering the threshold of what constitutes criminal behavior.

No, they haven't made criminals of us all -- just those of you who drink & drive

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NO you are the fool. Computers make any miss step a life of misery as they never forget, after the criminal has paid is dues to society.

Of course you have never made a mistake, are perfect, near god like. Can we speak with you your king??

[Final Authority]

Although I do not condone it, driving with open containers was legal in NH up until about ten years ago. Then they dropped the limit to .08, and now there is a hair brained scheme to force everybody with two convictions to spend considerable time in jail.

The jail thing makes it difficult for a fair minded cop to put the cuffs on a driver who just has had a couple of drinks but otherwise can make it home OK and so already second conviction rate is down, or, it could be the deterrent factor. But what is obvious is the change in the scenery since it has become illegal to have an open container, the roadside litter of beer cans and bottles, not to mention small vodka bottles is alarming.

[caver]

Another thing along these lines is the open container law recently came into being here in Indiana. Any empty beer can laying in your floorboard can get you popped. Tell me what an empty can of beer or even one can of open beer in a car can do?

[Rodney King]

Tell me what an empty can of beer or even one can of open beer in a car can do?

Don't know. But now they are all laying along the side of the road.

[Sloth]

Of course you have never made a mistake, are perfect, near god like. Can we speak with you your king??

I make mistakes... like forgetting to wash clothes for work, or overusing my credit cards. You'll notice that neither of these errors endangers the lives of innocent strangers.

[VA_Gentleman]

I'm glad some sense was shown here. It's ridiculous for people to have to serve jail time, thousands in legal fees, etc. for having three glasses of wine with dinner instead of two. (This happened to a girl I know). I'm not condoning drinking and driving, mind you.

[caver]

Unintended consequences.

[sierrahome]

When I was a kid we use to ice skate on a pond on the outskirts of town. We would build a huge fire in a pit that had been used for generations. We were all underage but many would bring rum or beer and we would play hockey until 3 or 4 in the morning. The county provided two big lights on the pond. The police would often stop and talk with us and remark "good to see you kids having some clean fun" They knew there was alcohol but we kept it down and alcohol wasn't the reason for the gathering either.
When alcohol becomes the reason for the party that's big trouble.
There is an 8 foot chain link fence around the pond and a whole lotta kids with nothing to do. That sure seems like the case in a lot of other small towns too.

[longshadow]

I'll try to find them. I remember seeing it a year or so ago and being "struck" by it.

"Car & Driver" magazine had an in-depth article that cited the same information about 15 years ago. As I recall, the average BAC of drunk drivers who are involved in a fatality is 0.20. That's the average! If they are much above 0.3, they can't even get the key into the ignition to start the car, let alone drive it.