Judges decision on DWI laws may affect all of same
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
A Fairfax County judge may be about to toss a serious monkey wrench into the mechanics of all DWI/DUI laws, having ruled that an old Supreme Court decision makes them unconstitutional.
Headline is linked. Article was originally buried away a few pages into the Washington Times print edition. I know some people are very skeptical about any content from The Washington Times, but perhaps it will comfort them to know the original materials were provided by (some might even claim ghost written by) the Associated Press.
Judge rules parts of DWI laws unconstitutional
By Matthew Barakat
ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 12, 2005
A Fairfax [Va.] 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 suspected drunken drivers last month.
As a district judge, 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.
"I am sure there will be lawyers out in the field making similar arguments tomorrow," Steven Oberman, chairman of the DUI defense committee at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Corinne Magee, a McLean defense lawyer who first successfully argued the issue to Judge O'Flaherty, said Judge O'Flaherty's ruling is based on a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case called Francis v. Franklin, which deals with prosecutors' obligation to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Miss Magee said she came across the Francis case doing research on another case and realized it might apply to Virginia's drunken-driving laws.
"Frankly, I was surprised" that the judge dismissed the case based on her constitutional arguments, Miss Magee said yesterday. "But I think Judge O'Flaherty's ruling is based on a very solid reading of this case."
She said Virginia's law is problematic -- not only because of the presumption of intoxication at 0.08, but also because a presumption in the law makes the blood-alcohol level at the time the test is taken equal to the level at the time of the offense, even if the test occurs hours after police make a stop. Miss Magee said a person's blood alcohol level can fluctuate depending on when a person had their last drink and how their body metabolizes alcohol.
... more at linked article
This is a very surprising ruling, and as noted, it could have far reaching effects if others start to use the same precedent in their arguments on DUI/DWI cases.
Frankly, the argument that this seems to center around, of whether or not someone that has a 0.08 blood alcohol level is intoxicated and impaired is one that I myself would probably make if I were ever charged with such. Not that I'm more than an occassional drinker (pretty rarely actually), but given that each individual is effected differently by alcohol, it's tough for me to believe that it's fair to say that someone that drinks more frequently and has more tolerance for alcohol they consume would be as impaired as say I would if I had the same blood alcohol level.
Understand, I'm a believer in pretty much zero tolerance for someone that drives while impaired. I've seen too many of the results of accidents caused by, or involving those individuals. People have lost too many loved ones to people that had no business climbing behind the wheel after they had consumed alcohol, but still, like people that are caught speeding and then have a reckless driving charge tacked on, I think there are serious questions about whether whether someone that had a few drinks is really impaired, just as I ask if someone that is caught speeding would really have been considered reckless. (To clarify, incase you wonder, I don't say speeders aren't reckless, just that simply speeding is not necessarily reckless. Reckless to me is weaving back and forth impatiently, riding too closely to vehicles in front of you, not paying attention to signals, and other things that demonstrate someone is not maintaining control and practicing safe driving while behind the wheel. One can be speeding along doing 70 in a 55 MPH zone and not be reckless if others around are driving the same speed, or the road is not busy....)
Anyway, it'll be interesting when this news really starts impacting court cases. How long will it take the U.S. Senate and House of Represenatives to correct the problem, and will they even be able to? (And they probably have to be the ones to fix the problem, given that they have mandated the 0.08 standards via the transportation bills and such).
Headline is linked. Article was originally buried away a few pages into the Washington Times print edition. I know some people are very skeptical about any content from The Washington Times, but perhaps it will comfort them to know the original materials were provided by (some might even claim ghost written by) the Associated Press.
Judge rules parts of DWI laws unconstitutional
By Matthew Barakat
ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 12, 2005
A Fairfax [Va.] 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 suspected drunken drivers last month.
As a district judge, 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.
"I am sure there will be lawyers out in the field making similar arguments tomorrow," Steven Oberman, chairman of the DUI defense committee at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Corinne Magee, a McLean defense lawyer who first successfully argued the issue to Judge O'Flaherty, said Judge O'Flaherty's ruling is based on a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case called Francis v. Franklin, which deals with prosecutors' obligation to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Miss Magee said she came across the Francis case doing research on another case and realized it might apply to Virginia's drunken-driving laws.
"Frankly, I was surprised" that the judge dismissed the case based on her constitutional arguments, Miss Magee said yesterday. "But I think Judge O'Flaherty's ruling is based on a very solid reading of this case."
She said Virginia's law is problematic -- not only because of the presumption of intoxication at 0.08, but also because a presumption in the law makes the blood-alcohol level at the time the test is taken equal to the level at the time of the offense, even if the test occurs hours after police make a stop. Miss Magee said a person's blood alcohol level can fluctuate depending on when a person had their last drink and how their body metabolizes alcohol.
... more at linked article
This is a very surprising ruling, and as noted, it could have far reaching effects if others start to use the same precedent in their arguments on DUI/DWI cases.
Frankly, the argument that this seems to center around, of whether or not someone that has a 0.08 blood alcohol level is intoxicated and impaired is one that I myself would probably make if I were ever charged with such. Not that I'm more than an occassional drinker (pretty rarely actually), but given that each individual is effected differently by alcohol, it's tough for me to believe that it's fair to say that someone that drinks more frequently and has more tolerance for alcohol they consume would be as impaired as say I would if I had the same blood alcohol level.
Understand, I'm a believer in pretty much zero tolerance for someone that drives while impaired. I've seen too many of the results of accidents caused by, or involving those individuals. People have lost too many loved ones to people that had no business climbing behind the wheel after they had consumed alcohol, but still, like people that are caught speeding and then have a reckless driving charge tacked on, I think there are serious questions about whether whether someone that had a few drinks is really impaired, just as I ask if someone that is caught speeding would really have been considered reckless. (To clarify, incase you wonder, I don't say speeders aren't reckless, just that simply speeding is not necessarily reckless. Reckless to me is weaving back and forth impatiently, riding too closely to vehicles in front of you, not paying attention to signals, and other things that demonstrate someone is not maintaining control and practicing safe driving while behind the wheel. One can be speeding along doing 70 in a 55 MPH zone and not be reckless if others around are driving the same speed, or the road is not busy....)
Anyway, it'll be interesting when this news really starts impacting court cases. How long will it take the U.S. Senate and House of Represenatives to correct the problem, and will they even be able to? (And they probably have to be the ones to fix the problem, given that they have mandated the 0.08 standards via the transportation bills and such).