DUI And Constitutional Rights

By: Courtney Shipe

“We are a nation of laws, more specifically, the common law inherited from the British legal system. Unlike most nations, which use some version of the French civil law where laws are found in codes, we look to the precedent of judicial decisions interpreting statutory law.” The importance of precedent in our legal system cannot be overstated. Constitutional rights are being lost, not through the quick actions of political or military decisions, but through the slow erosion of precedent in our court systems. Drivers who are charged with “driving under the influence” or DUIs are most susceptible to this loss of rights. Add to this picture politically charged groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) which began as a mother grief stricken over the loss of her thirteen year old daughter and today is a major political voice with revenues of over 47 million annually.

Drunk driving is a politically incorrect topic. People are unanimously opposed to it both morally and socially. Nearly every religion in the world has ordinances and warning against intoxication and drunkenness. The fact remains, drunk drivers are a danger to themselves and others, causing a huge number of fatal accidents. However, the inherent wrongness of drunk driving does not mean we should allow the erosion of constitutional rights. On the contrary it is even more important for justice’s sake that a guilty citizen has the rights outlined in our Constitution.

The deterioration of rights began in 1990 when the Supreme Court found in Michigan v. Sitz. that sobriety checkpoints, although clearly a violation of the Fourth Amendment, were permissible because, as Judge Rehnquist stated, “No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States’ interest in eradicating it.” Dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas countered, “I rather doubt that the Framers of the Fourth Amendment would have considered "reasonable" a program of indiscriminate stops of individuals not suspected of wrongdoing.”

Further infringing on citizen’s rights, South Dakota v. Neville. found that refusing to submit to a breathalyzer was illegal, although the Fifth Amendment gives citizens the right against self-incrimination. Finally the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial was lost next in Blanton v. North Las Vegas. As attorney Lawrence Taylor paraphrased on his blog, “First they came for the drunks, but I was not a drunk so I did not speak up…..”

About the Author

For more information about drunk driving please visit www.environmentaldiseases.com.

Suggested Products