Drunk Driving Laws Un-Constitutional

Other than being able to fly your own plane, driving is probably the most liberating physical activity known to man. Before we graduate from high school most of us have experienced the exhilaration of the freedom that comes with our first driver's license and our first vehicle. If you were raised in an agricultural environment you probably learned as soon as you could reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel. I got my first license when I was 14-years-old and remember my first $300 vehicle quite fondly.

But this is not about the vehicles I have owned, loved and cursed. That may come in a future story. This is about the loss of freedom that comes when you lose your ability to drive.

You see, in addition to driving, I enjoyed drinking and partying with friends. As most of you know by now, the two activities don't mix. Until the middle 1980's however, driving while impaired was something that was more or less overlooked by law enforcement. It was not uncommon for the police to pull you over and then either escort you home or offer a ride instead of taking you to jail. Their objective was to prevent you from hurting yourself or others, not ruin your life while adding money to the substance abuse counseling and legal communities.

This all changed in the 1980's with the creation of an organization called Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD for short. Originated by a mother whose child died in an accident involving a drunk driver, MADD seemed to be a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, its status as a non-profit organization has been abused and the organization has become a powerful lobby that has influenced legislation that is often ridiculous and quite often counter-productive. They've accomplished this by spreading half-truths and information that is based on manipulated statistical information.

Common sense tells us that driving while under the influence of mind altering substances is unwise. There should be, and in fact are, deterrents in place to prevent it. It's against the law to drive under the influence and if caught doing so, the driver can be sentenced to jail time, fines, loss of driving privileges, and substance abuse counseling. In the event that there is injury or death caused as a result of someone driving intoxicated, additional penalties are applied.

So are laws against impaired drivers fairly implemented and is the penalty justified by the crime? Or has the influence of MADD and greed of law enforcement created a legislature that is overly concerned with satisfying angry mothers and not nearly focused enough on the individual rights of their constituents? MADD takes credit for forcing all states to lower the B.A.C. to .08 through legislation that would strip Federal highway funds from states that don't comply. At the same time, they spend very little effort eradicating the driver who is on prescription drugs or who has just smoked a joint prior to driving to the Kwik-Sak for some chips and dip. It almost seems as if their efforts focus on alcohol and ignore other forms of impairment. Could this be because less effort is needed to prove drunkenness?

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution says in part, "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

Are suspected drunk drivers being afforded "equal protection of the laws?" Do current DUI sentencing guidelines "deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law?" Are the "privileges or immunities" of the accused drunk driver being abridged by the state? From what I've personally experienced, as well as horror stories posted on web sites such as http://www.ridl.us or Responsibility in D.U.I. Laws (RIDL), the answers to these questions indicate the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the drinking man and woman. While we're at it, let's also explore how current DUI enforcement applies with regard to the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution.

Briefly, "equal protection of the laws" would mean all impaired drivers would be targeted by law enforcement. Sitting outside the local tavern at closing time specifically targets people who have been possibly drinking. What about those who have not had enough sleep, have been taking pain medication or those using cannabis? Are people talking on a cell phone not impaired? I submit equal protection is a myth. Is a person deprived of their "life, liberty or property without due process of law" when they are accused of driving drunk? Usually your vehicle is impounded, your driver's license is confiscated and you are placed in a jail cell for an undetermined period of time. This obviously deprives you of property and liberty, and if your livelihood depends on your ability to drive, your life is being affected as well. Finally, the accused drunk driver is having his or her "privileges or immunities" as a U.S. Citizen abridged by the state. They tell you in DUI school that driving is a privilege, not a right. This leads me to believe if they take that privilege away from me, or abridge my privilege, it's un-Constitutional.

The Fourth Amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Long before the administration of President George W. Bush trampled this Constitutional right, MADD convinced lawmakers that it is not unreasonable to randomly stop vehicles at a road block, interrogate the occupants of the vehicle and in doing so find something they think of as suspicious to use as justification of searching the vehicle and it's occupants. I submit the entire process involved with road blocks is unreasonable.

The Fifth Amendment says "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." If you are suspected of drunk driving and refuse to submit to a breath test or any other field sobriety tests, your driver's license is immediately suspended for at least six months. However submitting to the tests is a clear case of acting as a witness against your self. The deprivation of life, liberty and property has already been discussed. Some states now allow the courts to take possession of any vehicle that is driven by an intoxicated person and use it as they see fit, without compensating the owner of the vehicle. I'll be discussing double jeopardy shortly.

The Eighth Amendment says, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Cruel and unusual punishment is a subjective term, as is what constitutes an excessive fine. The consequences handed down to a person convicted of driving while intoxicated are not limited to the fines imposed by the courts.

To hire an attorney to properly represent you in court costs between $1,500 and $3,000. A person convicted of a first offense D.U.I. is typically fined about $500 plus court costs, sentenced to one or two days of confinement or possibly a week of house arrest, and their driver's license is suspended for up to a year. When I was on house arrest I had to pay $25 a day for the cost of monitoring, which would be $175 a week. If your occupation depends on your ability to drive, you lose your job. An alcohol evaluation is often ordered to decide your level of addiction, followed by a possibly eight week alcohol awareness class. Depending on the results of the evaluation, you may also be sentenced to a substance abuse treatment program -- all at your expense. Of interest here is that the people evaluating your need for treatment, are often the only court approved treatment facility available. Is there a possible conflict of interest here?

Finally, after you've completed everything and you are eligible to get your license back, you must pay a re-instatement fee of about $200 and then pay high risk insurance rates for the next three years. Furthermore, the first D.U.I. will never be stricken from your record. If you ever receive another, the first is used as justification for stiffer penalties. One person at R.I.D.L. has estimated the total cost of his first D.U.I. at over $12,000. I think that would qualify as excessive, cruel and unusual.

Besides the obvious assault on a driver's Constitutional rights, the insanity of current D.U.I. laws is pandemic. The laws are written to placate organizations such as MADD and have really done nothing to decrease alcohol related traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers. On the other hand, they've been allowed to ruin or at best, significantly complicate the lives of millions of people, the majority of which are responsible, productive citizen's who have made an error in judgment.

To illustrate how this all comes together to make absolutely no sense, I'll share with you my personal experience. As previously stated, I drank and drove on a regular basis until I quit drinking. If I had to guess, I'd say I've driven while under the influence of alcohol several thousand times in my life. This is not something I'm proud of, but is simply the truth. Out of those thousands of times, I was probably legally intoxicated over 500 times. There are maybe three times when I don't recall driving due to my level of inebriation. I've been charged with D.U.I. five times and convicted twice. Both times I was convicted, it was because I pled guilty to D.U.I. or D.U.I. per se, which means I believed I would be convicted whether I was guilty or not. The other three times I was charged, I was able to hire an attorney and the charges were reduced to something other than D.U.I. No one was ever injured as a result of my drinking and driving.

The second time I was convicted was indirectly responsible for the other times I was charged. I had been living in Florida and had just returned to my home state of Montana and was still driving with a Florida driver's license. I was pulled over for having a busted tail light lens after leaving a bar where I had been playing pool and drinking beer all evening. I suspect the busted tail light lens was no accident, as it wasn't busted before that night. Although I refused the field sobriety tests that evening and declined to take a breath test, I was allowed to bond myself out for the money I had in my pocket if I could get someone sober to come and get me.

To make a long story medium-sized, in an attempt to be accountable for my actions I pled guilty to a second offense D.U.I. and was prepared to accept the consequences. In Montana at the time, a 2nd offense was fined $565, sentenced to seven days in jail or 30 days house arrest, required to submit to an alcohol evaluation and any treatment recommended as a result of the evaluation, attend Alcohol Counseling and Treatment (A.C.T.) classes (one class per week lasting three hours each for a month), and loss of driving privileges for a year. For refusing to take the field sobriety tests, you automatically lose your license for 6 months. Following that, you may apply for a restricted license for driving to and from work. I was also ordered by the court to attend 45 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in 90 days. My sentence was imposed on September 5th, 1995 and the following year, I received a letter from the State of Montana informing me that I could pay a re-instatement fee and have my driving privileges restored, because I had paid my debt to society.

I had committed a crime, was caught and sentenced and the sentence was carried out. That's how the legal system is set up and I don't have a problem with that. My problem came when I went to have my license reinstated and was informed that the State of Florida had my privilege to drive suspended for ten years and I would not be able to get a license until they lifted the suspension. I told the State of Montana that I had never even been pulled over, let alone given a ticket in Florida. There must be some mistake.

There was no mistake. Florida suspends the license of those convicted a second time of drinking and driving if they are driving with a license from that state. I immediately called the Driver Improvement Bureau in Florida and explained I had committed no crimes in Florida. I explained that I drove intoxicated in a different state and they had properly disposed of the infraction through a court of law.

My pleas for common decency fell on deaf ears. I was eventually told that I could apply for a hardship license. All I had to do was go to a class once a month for a year in Florida and they would grant me a license enabling me to drive for employment and welfare purposes. When I advised them I was 3,000 miles away and it was not possible for me to visit the Sunshine State on a monthly basis, I was told if I wanted to drive for the next ten years I would find a way. I explained I had successfully completed the evaluations, the counseling, the awareness classes and the jail time in Montana. Florida doesn't recognize or honor these programs from other states.

I wrote letters to representatives of both states, had lawyers try to find a way for me to legally drive again and even considered moving back to Florida just so I could drive without violating the law. To me, this seemed as if I was being sentenced twice for the same offense. This was double jeopardy. Everyone I spoke with agreed that this was wrong, but no one could do anything about it.

I finally got a license on September 5th, 2005, ten years to the day after pleading guilty to my second D.U.I. The hardships created by not having a license are massive. Thanks to organizations like MADD, I was deprived of my inalienable rights to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The ridiculous catch-22 that I found myself in forced me to break the law on an almost daily basis for many years.

I had to go into business for myself because most companies today hesitate hiring anyone without a driver's license. This is true whether the job requires you to drive or not. The lack of a license is seen by many to be a sign of poor character, irresponsibility and undependability.

As a painting contractor, it was necessary that I drive to haul material and tools to do my job. When I went to work as a laborer in the fiber-optic network construction business, they didn't care if I had a license or not. Within six months that changed as I began to be promoted in the company. I kept the fact that I didn't have a license a secret and even declined a company vehicle when offered one. After a year and a half with the company, driving approximately 300 miles a day, I had been promoted to a position where I was making incredible money doing a job that was extremely satisfying. When it was learned I didn't have a license, my employment was immediately terminated, in accordance with company policy. Just within the last month I was eliminated from consideration for a position I applied for when they asked if my license had been suspended within the last five years. Because of something I did 12 years ago, I was being denied the opportunity to earn a living. These are just a few of the many occupational problems caused by not having a license.

Another thing that is complicated by not being able to legally drive is the assumption of guilt that is immediately assumed by the police if you are pulled over for any reason. If someone carelessly hits you while you are driving down the street, you are going to go to jail. If your vehicle slides off the road in a blizzard and you have to call for help, you are going to jail. If you are stopped at a sobriety check road block, you're going to jail. If you are stopped for having a burned out turn signal, as soon as the officer finds you are driving without a license, a friendly warning turns into a book full of citations and you go to jail.

The last time I was pulled over for anything was in West Texas in 2000. I was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. I was then given a citation for driving while suspended and for driving without liability insurance. The Department of Public Safety Officer asked me why my license was suspended and I told him about Florida. He then asked why I didn't have insurance on my vehicle. I couldn't stop myself from asking him if he'd insure a guy who had no driver's license. The humor was lost on him. After he thoroughly searched my vehicle for illegal aliens or evidence of drug trafficking, the kind officer allowed me to follow him into the next town so I could get enough money out of an ATM to pay the bond on the tickets he wrote. He then advised me to buckle up and have a nice day, waving as he watched me drive away with no insurance or license.

Taking away my driving privileges, and denying me the liberty that comes with being able to move from point A to Point B legally, did absolutely nothing to stop me from drinking and driving. What it did do was force me to learn how to drink and drive without being caught. It also made me much more aware of the importance of not giving the law a reason to pull you over. I always made sure my lights all worked, never exceeded the speed limit, made sure my tags were up to date and always signaled before changing lanes. I also became more aware of my surroundings at all times and in general became a better, safer driver. I had learned how to not get caught.

There are career violent criminals that are given lighter sentences than some people get for driving while under the influence. There are people who have stolen millions of dollars from thousands of people that are not treated as harshly as someone who drove drunk. Rapists and child molesters may be released from custody long before someone with two D.U.I.s is finished paying for their crime. Sentencing people for what might happen is wrong. If there is injury or death caused by a drunk driver, charge and sentence them accordingly. But, those who make a bad choice and drive after drinking don't deserve what the current laws dole out. Taking a person's livelihood away from them doesn't make much sense at all.