Monthly Archives: August 2005
As regular readers know, I’ve railed in past posts about the "DUI Exception to the Constitution" — the willingness of legislatures and judges to ignore the Bill of Rights in drunk driving cases. Examples of this are the presumptions of guilt that apply in all 50 states, as I pointed out in a post entitled "Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?".
In yesterday’s news is a story about a judge who has apparently had enough and has decided to start following the Constitution in DUI cases:
Va. Judge Disputes Constitutionality Of DUI Law
District Court Judge Dismissing DUI Cases
Fairfax, Virginia – A Fairfax County judge is dismissing cases against drivers charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
District Court Judge Ian O’Flaherty said the law prosecutors use to convict drunken drivers is unconstitutional.
A Virginia state trooper sent News4 an e-mail saying police are upset about the dismissals. Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Robert Horan confirmed that the judge is ruling against prosecutors, making it harder to get drunken drivers off the road.
The judge is challenging one of the powers police and prosecutors rely on for arrests and convictions: the results of breath tests given to suspected drunken drivers. Virginia law says that anyone with a blood alcohol content level of 0.08 percent or more is presumed to be driving under the influence of alcohol. It is then up to the driver to rebut the presumption or prove he or she wasn’t drunk.
O’Flaherty began dismissing DUI charges two weeks ago, ruling that the law is unconstitutional because the burden of proof in all cases rests with the prosecutor and this law puts the burden on the defense.
It is interesting that the prosecutor’s main objection to the rulings was that it was "making it harder to get drunk drivers off the road" — not that the judge was legally wrong.
To explain a bit further the basis for the judge’s ruling, the following is excerpted from my earlier post "Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?":
In most countries of the world, an accusation by the State forces the accused to prove himself innocent. In America, however, the presumption of innocence has always been a fundamental part of our rights as a free people. This basic protection against the power of the government has been recognized as flowing from the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to our Constitution. As the United States Supreme Court has said, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." Coffin v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895)….
Let’s assume you have been arrested for drunk driving, and a Breathalyzer gave a reading of .09% blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). You will be charged with two crimes: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), and (2) driving with over .08% BAC. Let’s look at the .08% charge first…..
[Discussion of legal presumptions that the machine is accurate and that the officer administered the test correctly.]
…So much for the .08% charge. At least the defendant is presumed innocent of the DUI charge, right? Wrong. The laws of most states create a presumption of guilt: if the Breathalyzer reads .08% BAC or higher, the jury will be instructed that the defendant is legally presumed to be under the influence of alcohol. That’s right: the defendant is presumed guilty. This is called a "rebuttable presumption" — that is, the defendant can try to rebut this presumption with other evidence (what other evidence?). Put another way, he is presumed guilty and the burden is on him to prove his innocence. Just like in third world countries.
Ok, but the law says it’s illegal to have .08% BAC when driving — not when tested an hour later at the police station. If, for example, a person has a drink or two before driving, the alcohol will not be absorbed into the system for an hour or so: it will not be in his system while driving, but will be reaching peak BAC levels when tested an hour later at the station. So how does the prosecution prove what the BAC was at the time of driving?
Easy: the law again facilitates conviction by presuming that the BAC was the same, so long as the test was taken within three hours of driving….Well, now, that’s really amazing. The Legislature simply passed a law against scientific truth. We can absolutely say, with scientific certainty, that the BAC will NOT be the same three hours after the test…..
A few days ago I posted a news story about MADD assisting police at DUI "sobriety checkpoints". What I didn’t realize is that MADD apparently goes even further — setting up their own roadblocks! The following news story from a couple of years ago reports on one such roadblock:
CLINTON PROSECUTOR AT ODDS WITH MADD
A prosecutor in Clinton, Tennessee, says the president of the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been irresponsible.
Anderson County District Attorney General Jim Ramsey said a MADD roadblock June 28th caused a two-vehicle accident.
Further, he said the MADD chapter has interfered in criminal cases and been involved in publicity stunts.
MADD chapter president Susan Ford said the group stays within the policies and guidelines of the organization. She said she feels like the group has community support.
Presumably, MADD is not authorized to stop vehicles on the highways — in which case, why aren’t any of the mad mothers arrested and prosecuted? They clearly pose a threat to public safety (and just as clearly are politically very powerful).
(Thanks to Jeanne Pruett, President of Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc.)
In a post some time ago, I wrote that the ultimate goals of Mothers Against Drunk Driving lay well beyond lowering DUI levels to .08%, .05% and ultimately to .01%. The ultimate goal is, simply, resurrecting the failed experiment of prohibition.
The first step, of course, would be a gradual shift of focus away from drinking and driving to one of just drinking. And the logical starting point would be the more politically-acceptable target of underage drinking.
I mentioned in the post that in 1999, MADD’s National Board of Directors unanimously voted to change the organization’s mission statement to include the prevention of underage drinking. Not underage drinking and driving — just drinking. Thus, this huge (annual revenues over $49 million) and politically powerful organization formally shifted its focus away from “drunk driving” and towards the broader “problem” of drinking.
Where does this lead us? How about laws that authorize the police to stop American citizens under 21 on the streets or even in their homes and force them to submit to breath tests or face arrest? Exaggeration? Even paranoia? Consider the following news release:
DETROIT, August 8 - In a case with far-reaching implications for young adults and minors throughout the state, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed a federal lawsuit today challenging a state law that allows police to force pedestrians under the age of 21 to take a Breathalyzer test without first obtaining a search warrant.
“It is time to stop the widespread practice in this state of punishing young people who are walking down the street for refusing to submit to a Breathalyzer test,” said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan. “The Constitution is clear – no search warrant, no Breathalyzer. Police cannot force pedestrians to submit to an unconstitutional search.”
Michigan is the only state in the country to make it illegal for young adults and minors who are not driving to refuse a Breathalyzer test when the police do not have a search warrant.
The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of two Saginaw Countywomen who were forced by Thomas Township police to submit to breath tests although they had not been drinking, as well on behalf of and two Mount Pleasant men forced to do the same by an interagency police task force that refers to itself as the “Party Patrol.”
Katie Platte was 19 years old when she went to a small party in Thomas Township in July 2004 in honor of a high school classmate who had enlisted in the Marines and was leaving for Iraq. In spite of the fact that Platte was not drinking any alcoholic beverages, the Township police told her and others at the party that if they refused to take a breath test they would go to jail.
“I wasn’t drinking or causing a problem,” said Platte, now an honors student at Saginaw Valley State University. “You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but in this case young people are assumed guilty until they prove they’re innocent by having to take a Breathalyzer test.”
According to Platte, the police in Thomas Township are known to frequently break up parties attended by young adults and force everyone at the party under the age of 21 to submit to Breathalyzer tests. University police officers recently raided an apartment in the building where she lives and forced all of those under the age of 21 to submit to Breathalyzer tests without a warrant, even though they were not driving or under arrest.
A second plaintiff, Ashley Berden, was 18 when she attended a party at a friend’s house to celebrate her graduation from Swan Valley High School. After she left the party, Thomas Township police officers arrived and found her purse, which she had forgotten. The police came to Berden’s house at 4:00 a.m., woke up her family and demanded that she take a Breathalyzer test. The police did not have a warrant and informed Berden that she would be violating the law if she refused the test. The test registered a .00 percent blood-alcohol level, indicating that Berden had not been drinking.
To paraphrase a German priest’s pre-WWII quote in a past post, “First they came for those under 21, but I was not under 21 so I did not speak up….”
From today’s news:
DOVER- The sixth week of Delaware’s "Checkpoint Strikeforce" campaign resulted in 22 arrests for DUI charges as well as the arrest of one man who is accused of trying to run down two volunteers from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).
According to police reports, the driver refused to obey several police commands to stop the vehicle and roll down his window. According to the police, the driver then tried to flee the checkpoint and in the process nearly ran over two members of Delaware’s MADD chapter who were assisting police at the checkpoint…..
I hope the two MADD mothers weren’t too frightened, but what I really want to know is: When did MADD start "assisting" police administer DUI roadblocks?
(Thanks to Donald Ramsell of Wheaton, Illinois.)
In my previous post, I mentioned how zealous police and prosecutors were willing to charge a citizen with DUI even when the evidence showed he had no alcohol or drugs in his system. It would appear that the presence of alcohol is not prerequisite to arrest and prosecution for drunk driving — nor, apparently, is driving, as a recent (July 27) news article seems to indicate:
Portage, IN (AHN) – Police arrested Kaylyn Kezy and Melissa Fredenburg on DUI charges after they pushed their car into a parked car. According to reports, the women were taking turns pushing the non-running car while the other steered…
Although the car was not running, the women were operating the vehicle while intoxicated, according to Prosecutor Adam Burroughs.
I suppose the next logical step is arresting folks for just thinking about it.