DUI Double Jeopardy and Multiple Punishment
Posted by Lawrence Taylor on January 30th, 2008When a person is arrested for DUI, his driver’s license is confiscated by the arresting officer and he is given a notice of “administrative suspension”. He is also given a citation to appear in court to face criminal drunk driving charges. These are usually two very different procedures: (1) the administrative suspension for driving with blood-alcohol of .08%, in most states administered by its department of motor vehicles, and (2) the criminal prosecution for the two separate offenses of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI or DWI) and driving with .08%, which takes place in the courts.
In other words, even though he only drove once, the individual is being prosecuted in court for two different crimes: DUI and driving with a .08% BAC. He can even be convicted of both offenses (although he can only be punished for one). How is this possible?
It gets worse….The driver has already been punished by another state agency (the Department of Motor Vehicles) for driving over .08% by having his license suspended. If he is later convicted in the state’s criminal court of driving over .08% (and/or driving under the influence), he will be punished once again. The sentence may involve jail, fines, DUI schools, community work, probation — and a restricted, suspended or revoked license.
How many times can the state prosecute a person for a single crime?
Our Constitution says only once. The Fifth Amendment specifically provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb”. So is this another example of “the DUI exception to the Constitution”?
Let’s first take the question of charging defendants with both DUI and .08%. The courts in the different states wrestled with this one for awhile, but eventually came to the conclusion that the driver actually commited two different crimes. As an Indiana court reasoned, “the test to be applied to determine whether there are two different offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Sering v. State, 488 N.E.2d 369 (1986). The .08 statute required proof of blood-alcohol concentration; although blood-alcohol evidence was used to prove the DUI crime as well (a person is usually presumed to be under the influence if his BAC is .08% or higher), the offense could be proved without it. So it’s ok to prosecute and convict him for both crimes – so long as you don’t punish him for both.
Hmm…
Well, what about punishing the driver by suspending his license when he’s arrested — and then punishing him again in court? In fact, punishing him in court with a sentence that may include another license suspension?
This one caused the judges a bit more trouble. This wasn’t a case where the person was committing two different crimes: he was being punished by two different state agencies for the same crime: driving with .08% BAC. But there had to be some way to get around the Constitution….
The courts could not agree. Some said that there was no double jeopardy or double punishment since the DMV license foreiture was not really a “punishment” but only a “civil sanction”. Others took the position that this was, in fact, a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and they relied upon a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision (U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435) which involved civil forfeitures and criminal punishments for selling marijuana. In that case the Court held that a “civil sanction” was actually a punishment — and thus double jeopardy — if (1) the “clear focus of (the statute) is on the culpability of the individual”, and (2) the legislature “understood these provisions as serving to deter and punish”. The Court added that “the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment” weighs heavily in favor of the conclusion that forfeiture continues to serve punitive purposes.
Well, relying upon the Supreme Court’s ruling, an alarming number of courts around the country were throwing out criminal DUI charges on double jeopardy grounds. This, of course, infuriated MADD, legislators, prosecutors, law enforcement, insurance companies and pretty much everyone else who did not take the Constitution too seriously. But rescue arrived from a more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1997, Chief Justice Rehnquist revisited the forfeiture-punishment problem and did something that is rarely ever done: he criticized and flatly rejected the earlier Supreme Court’s ruling: “We believe that Halper’s deviation from long-standing double jeopardy principles was ill-considered….Halper’s test for determining whether a particular sanction is “punitive”, and thus subject to the strictures of the Double Jeopardy Clause, has proved unworkable”. Hudson v. U.S., 592 U.S. 93 (1997).
Since then, the courts have had little trouble finding that a police officer who confiscates and suspends the driver’s license of a drunk driving suspect is merely administering a “civil sanction”, not punishment….and that when he is later convicted in court and is fined, jailed and has his license suspended again, well that’s not really double jeopardy or multiple punishment. It just looks an awful lot like it.
From Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
Mr. Taylor,
You write:
“If he is later convicted in the state’s criminal court of driving over .08% (and/or driving under the influence), he will be punished once again. The sentence may involve jail, fines, DUI schools, community work, probation — and a restricted, suspended or revoked license.”
I understood that in California at least when you beat the DMV you kept your license as long as you weren’t convicted on or plead to the (b) count (.08 or higher). Do I have it wrong?
Prof.
Comment by Prof. Challenger — January 31, 2008 @ 11:16 am
I believe that you are right, Prof. You do keep your liscense under those circumstances.
Roger
http://www.dwiblogger.com/
Comment by dwiattorney — February 2, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
I always wonder how it is that they are able to punish *at all* (i.e. confiscating the license and/or license plate) before the accused has been convicted.
Comment by Stella — February 7, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
Stella,
There is an administrative proceeding wherein your license is revoked. Because it’s not criminal, it’s civil, the accused has to initiate the proceedings. If he doesn’t, the license is automatically suspended.
If you think that is unfair you should look into what the federal and state government does with respect to civil asset forfeiture.
Prof.
Comment by Prof. Challenger — February 8, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
Okay, since the US Supreme Court has deemed the addition of the confiscation of your license an “Administrative Sacntion” and does not apply to the double jeopardy protection, I feel that we need to take a look at what “Administrative Sanctions” really means. This would also apply to states that assess fees to get the confiscated license re-instated.
According to Miriam-Webster ( 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanction ), this is defined as: the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law.
According to Miriam-Webster ( 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercing ), this is defined as:
1. to compel to an act or choice
2. to restrain of dominate by force
3. to achieve by force.
According to Miriam-Webster ( 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annex ), this is defined as:
1: to attach as a quality, consequence, or condition
2archaic : to join together materially : unite
3: to add to something earlier, larger, or more important
4: to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state
5: to obtain or take for oneself
Now that we have a definition of what a sanction is, we can now see that from sanction ( coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law ) this is a condition in addition placed on the original infraction of the law. To become a third-party to a legal proceeding by others for the protection of an alleged interest ( Mirriam-Webster, 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intervene ) combined with coercion, the state has now become a FORCED third-party to enforce a law. Well, the “sanction” has now become an addition ( annex ) to the original law. In other words what ever the state law dictates for the infraction, the other third-party is adding to the penalties of the state law. Since a sanction is defined as “the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law”, how can they say this does not apply additional penalties and/or fines to a state law. Penalty is defined as the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense ( Miriam-Webster, 2008 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penalty ).
BOTH SANCTION AND PENALTY are no different in meaning. Each are applied repercussions to an offense, yet they are applied at different time periods within the Judicial System by different governing bodies. In other words, each time an action is taken on a single offense, damage is assessed to this action. This violates the double jeopardy law that is supposed to protect the US citizen.
This has additional repercussions. In the current Judicial System, a defendant can be brought to court for the offence in two different court systems. The Criminal and the Civil. This has always been a concern of mine ever since I was interviewed for a civil case jury. The defendant had already been brought under a judicial system and was aquitted. He was then brought before a civil court for punitive damages that were all based upon the original alleged offence in criminal court, in which they was acquitted. If this is not double jeopardy, I do not have any hope for our society. Either they are guilty of a crime or not. The prosecution has one chance to prove beyond a doubt to show that the defendant is guilty of a particular crime or not. You should not be able to then try and apply civil actions based upon the same alleged infraction no matter the the action named. This is nothing more than applying a single offence in two different court systems in order to gain a favorable result. In other words, according to the Fifth Amendment, is an action either a crime or not. Then try the individual for the crime
in the Criminal or Civil, not both. The idea that an individual can be tried in both, “NOT” either, has always sent bone-chilling effects, no matter the case.
Comment by rholtzjr — February 14, 2008 @ 5:08 pm