DUI BLOG

Yes, you read that title correctly. The United States Supreme Court just ruled that police can withdraw blood from an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence.

Six years ago, police found Gerald Mitchell on a beach in Wisconsin and suspected he was intoxicated after a neighbor reported that he was drunk and suicidal. After being arrested, Mitchell was transported to a hospital. However, by the time he arrived at the hospital, he was unresponsive and law enforcement ordered hospital staff to draw his blood, which revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.22 percent.

Although Mitchell tried to exclude his blood alcohol content from evidence, he was denied and ultimately convicted of driving under the influence. After losing in the Wisconsin state courts, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the withdrawal of his blood while he was unconscious without a warrant violated his 4^th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority which included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and himself, concluded that the 4^th Amendment, generally, does require a warrant to conduct a search. However, he went on to say that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement including “exigent circumstances” where, as here, a warrantless blood withdraw was necessary to “prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Alito continued that the alcohol in a person’s system is “literally disappearing,” which justifies the need to obtain the evidence before taking the time for law enforcement to obtain a warrant.

“Indeed, not only is the link to pressing interests here tighter; the interests themselves are greater: Drivers who are drunk enough to pass out at the wheel or soon afterward pose a much greater risk,” Alito wrote. “It would be perverse if the more wanton behavior were rewarded — if the more harrowing threat were harder to punish.”

Alito also noted that the condition of a driver who is unconscious creates additional burdens on law enforcement since the driver will likely be taken to a hospital rather than the police station where a breath test can be administered.

“It would force them to choose between prioritizing a warrant application, to the detriment of critical health and safety needs, and delaying the warrant application, and thus the BAC test, to the detriment of its evidentiary value and all the compelling interest served by BAC limits,” he wrote. “This is just the kind of scenario for which the exigency rule was born – just the kind of grim dilemma it lives to dissolve.”

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the result, but not Alito’s rationale. Thomas maintained that since alcohol automatically leaves a person’s blood within a certain amount of time, police should be able to forcibly withdraw blood whether the driver is conscious or not.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan. Sotomayor argued that Alito’s rationale had missed the point. Sotomayor emphasized that, in this case, law enforcement admitted that there was time to obtain a warrant for Mitchell’s blood, but that they didn’t because of “implied consent.” Implied consent, which exists here in California, is a law that a driver has impliedly agreed to a chemical test by mere virtue of having a driver’s license.

“Wisconsin has not once, in any of its briefing before this Court or the state courts, argued that exigent circumstances were present here,” Sotomayor wrote. “In fact, in the state proceedings, Wisconsin ‘conceded’ that the exigency exception does not justify the warrantless blood draw in this case.”

She went on to say, correctly so in my opinion, that, while “drunk driving poses significant dangers that Wisconsin and other States must be able to curb…the answer is clear: If there is time, get a warrant.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented separately also taking issue with the fact that the case had been decided on grounds that were not the basis for the appeal; whether implied consent laws violate the 4^th Amendment.

“We took this case to decide whether Wisconsin drivers impliedly consent to blood alcohol tests thanks to a state statute,” Gorsuch wrote. “That law says that anyone driving in Wisconsin agrees — by the very act of driving — to testing under certain circumstances. But the Court today declines to answer the question presented. Instead, it upholds Wisconsin’s law on an entirely different ground—citing the exigent circumstances doctrine.”

Take a second to ask yourself what place you expect to be more private than any other place, including your home. I expect that the most prevalent answer is “our bodies.” Yet, for the place that we consider to be the most private, law enforcement does not need a warrant to intrude into it as long as we have a driver’s license.

Sound like a loophole for law enforcement? It is!

I am not saying that we shouldn’t be testing the blood of suspected drunk drivers. But the Constitution protects all of us, suspected drunk drivers included. And if the Constitution requires a warrant to search, especially the thing most of hold to be the most private, then law enforcement should have to get one.

It’s not like law enforcement is sending the warrant application by raven! How long (or difficult) would it really take to obtain a warrant? A few minutes if done digitally? Alito and the majority don’t seem to care as they continue to make it easier for law enforcement to violate constitutional rights.

Justice Sotomayor said it best. If there is time, get a warrant.

 

 

 

We often spend so much time talking about unique DUI-related topics, many of which discuss the complicated intricacies of DUI’s and DUI law, that we forget to go back and just remind our readers about the basics of a California DUI. Therefore, every so once in a while, I like to go back and just discuss the basics of a California DUI. Before I go any further, I’ll preface this post by saying that the below information is not for DUI’s where aggravating circumstances were present such as prior DUI convictions, collisions, injuries to third parties, an unusually high BAC, a refusal of a chemical test, and so on.

In order to be stopped and arrested on suspicion of a California DUI, officers need probable cause to believe that a person is driving under the influence. For an officer to have probable cause, they need to have reasonable and trustworthy facts that a person is driving under the influence. Officers obtain the probable cause needed to make a DUI arrest by observing poor driving patterns, observing signs of intoxication (slurred speech, smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes), poor performance on field sobriety tests, and/or failure of a pre-arrest breathalyzer known as a “preliminary screening alcohol test” (PAS test).

A driver can limit the probable cause that the officers are looking for by taking steps to enforce their rights. If pulled over on suspicion of driving under the influence, the driver should not say anything to police except to invoke their 5^th Amendment right to remain silent and request an attorney. The field sobriety tests are optional and should not be performed. See any of our numerous articles on the inaccuracies of field sobriety tests. Lastly, the PAS test is also optional and also should not be taken. By limiting the probable cause, the driver will give their defense attorney the ability to argue that the arrest was illegal because the officer did not have the required probable cause to make the DUI arrest.

I should note that a driver will likely still be arrested whether they take measures to protect their rights or not. Again, the purpose of protecting your rights is to help with the DUI defense in court, not to prevent an arrest. I repeat, the officers will almost always still make the arrest.

Once arrested, the driver will be required to submit to a chemical test which can either be a breath or a blood test. Do not confuse this test with the roadside breathalyzer (PAS) test. The PAS test is optional. The chemical test is required, but is only required after a driver is lawfully arrested.

After the driver is arrested, they will be held until they sober up and released with a court date. In the time between the arrest and the court date, the law enforcement agency will send its police report to the appropriate prosecuting agency to make the decision about whether to file charges.

If a DUI is charged, it will typically be under California Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and/or 23512(b). Simply put, Vehicle Code 23152(a) makes it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol and Vehicle Code 23152(b) makes it illegal to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher. If a person is arrested having been suspected of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant other than alcohol, they will likely be charged with California Vehicle Code section 23152(e).

The filing of charges triggers a criminal case in the appropriate courthouse. The court will schedule a hearing called an arraignment. At arraignment, the DUI suspect, who is now a DUI defendant, will enter a plea, be advised of their rights, and the charges pending against them.

Following the arraignment, there may be several or no pretrial hearings to allow the prosecutor and any defense attorney, either private or a public defender, to assess the merits of the case and negotiate a plea deal. A plea deal may include a reduction in charges to a “wet reckless,” “dry reckless,” or some other lesser charge. It may also include a reduction in sentence.

If no deal can be reached, the case proceeds to a trial where the prosecutor will have to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the DUI defendant drove a vehicle either under the influence of alcohol, under the influence of a drug, or with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher.

If the jury finds the person not guilty, the DUI defendant will suffer no legal penalties. However, if the finds the person guilty, they face a minimum of three years of summary probation, a fine between $390 and $1,000 plus penalties and assessments, and a three-month drunk driving program known as AB-541, and up to six-month in county jail. Other penalties that a defendant might face are a longer DUI program, a longer probationary period, a hospital and morgue program, a Mothers Against Drunk Driving Victim Impact Panel, AA meetings, and a SCRAM device (alcohol detecting anklet).

I’ve only scratched the surface of the basics of a California DUI, and I haven’t even mentioned the DMV consequences of a DUI arrest and/or conviction, which, by itself, could take up several stand-alone articles. See any number of previous posts about the DMV consequences of a DUI.

Needless to say, just the basics of a DUI are extremely complicated. Factor in other intricacies not mentioned here and it goes without saying that a person who has been stopped, arrested, and charged with a DUI should absolutely not try to take on the system by themselves. Hire a qualified and experienced DUI attorney who knows the process inside and out, and who will give you the best chance at a favorable outcome.

 

 

The Maui Police Department hope to be able to start enforcing their DUI laws in a more time efficient manner with the purchase and arrival of six new high-tech breathalyzers.

The current Intoxilyzer 8000 models have been used by the department since May 2015 and the introduction of the newer Intoxilyzer 9000s will hopefully allow the officers to spend less time documenting their tests results.

The new device is equipped with a touchscreen rather than a keyboard for easier data entry and its updated software will allow for some of the departmental forms to be incorporated into the device. This will allow the device to create reports rather than the officers manually typing out the reports as they did previously.

A grant totaling $63,000 through the state Department of Transportation allowed for the purchase of the new devices, and the Maui Police Department will be the first department in the state to transition to the Intoxilyzer 9000. The Honolulu Police Department also hopes to soon make the same transition.

DUI Task Force Sergeant Nick Krau has been tasked with the training as well as the writing of policy and operating procedures for the Intoxilyzer 9000 that will eventually be reviewed by the state Department of Health before being distributed. Official training and use of the new devices will take place soon thereafter.

A total of twelve officers, coming from multiple islands, spent time at a two-day training course at the Kihei Police Station in order to familiarize themselves with the new devices. The attending officers will be the ones primarily training other officers.

According to Lieutenant William Hankins, the commander of the police Traffic Section, “The technology is still the same as far as how it analyzes breath readings. It just makes it easier for the officers. Everything’s going to be faster.”

Six devices may not seem like a lot for an entire police department. however, these are not the same devices that patrol officers will have out on the street. The new Intoxilyzer 9000 devices will be analyzing results after the preliminary tests are administered and are to become the tests that are admissible in court.

Each police station in Maui County will have a new Intoxilyzer.

“We always strive to have the most updated technology possible for our officers and our community. It will allow us to get our officers back on the road faster,” said Krau.

I hope that the state departments and various police department heads do their very best to make sure that statement rings true.

A quick Google search revealed that the Intoxilyzer 9000 series has been in circulation as early as 2013. Some of the first states to implement the new model were Georgia and Colorado. Texas made a slower transition as there where a few deficiencies with the device that became apparent after other states had already begun using it but aimed for full implementation in 2015.

Although not quite as new and novel as Krau made it out to be, Hawaii’s implementation of the Intoxilyzer 9000 might signify an emerging trend of modernizing breathalyzers. Perhaps they were merely waiting for all of the deficiencies of the earlier 9000 series to work themselves out.

 

Back in January, we covered Utah and its new DUI law that lowered their blood alcohol content limit to 0.05 percent. (Utah Now Has the Lowest BAC Limit in the Country)

FOX13 of Salt Lake City did a deep dive into new DUI statistics in Utah since the new law’s start. It was reported by the Utah Department of Public Safety that of the 844 people who had been arrested statewide and 38 of them were arrested for having a blood alcohol concentration of between 0.05 and 0.079.

FOX13 took it a step further and broke down the numbers within the 38 who were arrested.

• 7 were found to be under the legal age of drinking
• 24 were alcohol restricted drivers and had previously been arrested for a DUI
• 2 were arrested with a combination of drugs, either prescription or illegal, in their system along with alcohol
• 1 refused a field sobriety test or chemical blood draw, the results which were positive after a warrant was issued
• 4 were arrested with the BAC being the only issue with the results between 0.05 and 0.079

Interestingly, the number of underage drinking violations do not show a change prevalence and, according to Michele Corgliano of the Salt Lake Are Restaurant Association, the breakdown and its supporting numbers show that the majority of the DUI arrests are not of drivers who registered a BAC that fell within the new lowered range.

 “These results are in line with our stand prior to the law: 33 of these arrests would have been illegal under the previous law: underage drinking, drugs, suspended license, etc. This is in line with our research, in that it does NOT show .05 is the reason for impairment,” Corgliano said to FOX13.

The average time it takes for the labs to return with the toxicology results to confirm blood alcohol contents is approximately 60 days. Therefore, we have yet to find out if the more recent months show a similar trend. However, since the time that the new law had been implemented, it seems that most of the arrests were for violations of DUI laws that were already in place before the new 0.05 DUI limit took effect. It may still be too early to make any deductions, but if this trend continues, the effectiveness of the new law could face some scrutiny.

Supporters of the 0.05 DUI law have been focused on the reduction of the crashes, injuries, and deaths, noting that it was never about the number of the arrests, but rather saving more lives from the act of driving under the influence. While that may or may not be true, we do not yet have the numbers of injuries and deaths since the implementation of the new law to determine if this law is making a difference. And having said that, I’m sure they’re not crying that at least some people were arrested under the new lowered BAC limit.

Other states such as California have been contemplating following in Utah’s footsteps and lowering their legal limit from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent. It will be interesting to see if California lawmakers take into account the numbers that Utah produces before making a decision. Given the aforementioned statistics for Utah’s new law, and if the current trend of seeming ineffectiveness continues, I certainly hope that California takes Utah’s numbers into account.

The Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee held a hearing on Monday, May 13^th, seeking public input on new DUI laws.

The hearing was motivated after a fatal DUI related crash in February. The crash occurred around 9:30 p.m. on February 16^th, Deana and Chris Eckman were driving on Route 452 in Upper Chichester, when David Strowhouer’s pickup truck crossed a double yellow line and slammed head-on into their car.

Authorities report that Strowhouer’s blood alcohol level was 0.199 and there were traces of cocaine, diazepam, and marijuana in his system. Court records showed that Strowhouer suffered five prior DUI’s in the last nine years and was on probation at the time of the crash.

Senator Tom Killion, a member of the committee, addressed the hearing, “Since the accident, everyone has been asking the same questions. How could this happen? How could someone who had already had five DUI’s once again get behind the wheel while intoxicated and end someone’s life, and what can we do to prevent this from happening again?”

Deana’s parents had done their homework and came to the hearing with some of the state’s DUI related data. One of them being that the minimum sentences for repeat offenses remain at one year and early release on “good-time” credit is a normal occurrence. As in Strowhouer’s case, a 2017 DUI incident gave him both his fourth and fifth DUI’s. He was given a total sentence of 18 to 36 months in state prison as his sentences were concurrent, rather than consecutive. Strowhouer’s arrest following the crash with the Eckmans would be his sixth DUI.

Deana’s father, Richard DeRosa, stressed that real change can only come from technological changes to the system, such as the Driver Alcohol Detection System (DADSS) which works to immobilize the vehicle when it detects that the driver is over the 0.08 percent legal blood alcohol concentration limit. Others, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving representative Debbie D’Addona, suggested items such as the SCRAM continuous alcohol monitoring bracelet, which notifies law enforcement when those monitored imbibe.

According to Chris Demko of Pennsylvania Parents Against Impaired Driving, state statistics showed that 300 people are killed every year by drunk drivers in the state and that around 40% of that number involve repeat offenders.

Killion noted that there is a hope for more focus on repeat offenders with repeated high blood alcohol contents and that it was necessary to change the public perception of an initial DUI from “something that is not a big deal to a wake-up call.”

Delaware County District Attorney Katayoun Copeland was open to the idea of implementing more technology to monitor parolees and probationers, and assured that the ideas would be explored further, but also noted that the committee has made progress in the last few years.

The committee’s push for harsher penalties resulted in a new homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence law which carries a mandatory minimum seven-year prison sentence. Although it was small consolation to the family of the Eckmans, Strowhouer was the first person in Delaware County to be charged under the new law.

Copeland also suggested during the hearing that additional laws be enacted in the current session, such as increasing minimum penalties to two or more years for repeat third tier offenders and removing the possibility for early release for repeat offenders.

Given Pennsylvania’s current statistical profile when it comes to DUI’s, it’s no wonder many in the public believe DUI offenders, including repeat offenders, are getting the benefit of the doubt. While I am all for giving someone a second chance, at some point it must be acknowledged that a problem exists when a person suffers multiple DUI offenses with a particularly high blood alcohol content.

Thus, several questions are begged: How do lawmakers address the problem of repeat DUI offenders? Do they punish more severely with the hope of a deterrent effect? Or do they try to keep drunk drivers off the road from the get-go?

DeRosa and D’Addona’s wish to implement more technology also comes with a price, literally. Those items are costly. Will the offenders be able to pay for them? DeRosa suggested during the hearing that Pennsylvania start requiring all new vehicles have the DADSS system installed. That’s nice, but not all of these offenders will be driving a brand-new car. Someone who is driving a 30-year-old clunker is just as likely to have too much to drink.