Judge Challenges Presumption of Drunk Driving August 15, 2005
News Summary
A Virginia judge has ruled that the state's drunk-driving law is unconstitutional, saying that presuming that drivers with a blood-alcohol level over .08 percent are intoxicated is a violation of the right to due process, MSNBC reported Aug. 12.Setting such a standing denies defendants the right to be presumed innocent, said District Judge Ian O'Flaherty, who cited a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the duty of prosecutors to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The ruling, which led to the dismissal of two DUI cases last month, is being closely watched by drunk-driving activists and defense attorneys across the country. "I am sure there will be lawyers out in the field making similar arguments tomorrow," said Steven Oberman, chairman of the DUI defense committee at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Defense lawyers said that the intoxication presumption standard is flawed because it assumes that blood-alcohol levels are the same at the time of the test as they were at the time of the alleged offense, even if hours have passed before the test is administered.
The president of the Northern Virginia chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving said the ruling "undermines the efforts of the police and prosecutors to enforce the DWI laws, puts drunk drivers back behind the wheel and potentially denies justice to victims of drunk drivers."
COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: