On Oct. 29, a new law went into effect that had unfortunate consequences.
The state eliminated 15-day temporary driver's licenses for those arrested for
drunken driving who failed or refused the breath test.
Now, people immediately lose their licenses, and, therefore, often plead to
the charge when they are innocent, because it is the only way to get their
license back so they can go to work. The system is set up so that the accused
are punished before they are found guilty.
Our state and federal constitutions both provide that every person accused
of a crime has a fundamental due process right to know the facts upon which
the prosecutor claims the law has been broken.
In the context of drunken driving, the necessary information includes, at a
minimum, the narrative reports prepared by the police, any videotapes that may
exist, and the information required to show that the equipment used to test
the motorist's breath was working properly, as well as whether the person
accused of the crime had any medical conditions, such as injuries which may
interfere with their ability to perform roadside tests.
Obtaining this information usually takes several weeks or even months.
Nevertheless, it is only after all of this necessary information is obtained,
reviewed, and analyzed that a defense attorney and his or her client can
determine if any of the motorists' rights have been violated by the police, or
if the breath test is unreliable or inaccurate.
There are many potential problems with breath testing and field sobriety
tests, but without adequate research time, it is impossible to know if the
test results can, or should support a conviction.
This situation places the defendant in an untenable position because the
rule essentially requires that the drunken driving accused must choose between
legitimately challenging the case against them, and earning a living.
And they must make the decision to plead guilty or go to trial, long before
they have all the necessary information. If a trial is selected, then the due
process rights of the accused will be violated because it is nearly impossible
to have a "fair" trial without first knowing all the facts.
If the Legislature was concerned about the issue of dealing with the issue
of drunken driving, there are far more effective things they could do instead
of making justice more difficult for the first time accused.
They could make sure that multiple offenders get alcohol treatment while in
jail. Rehabilitation would make them less likely to re-offend. They could also
put more cops on the street for deterrence and enforcement.
Drunken driving is a well-recognized societal problem; and because it is
such an unpopular crime, it is unlikely that there will be public outrage over
the constitutional issues this new rule creates.
However, when the rights of the criminally accused are placed in jeopardy,
as they are with this rule, ever citizen is endangered, whether he or she
realized it or not - and this most certainly should cause public concern.
