NCJ Number
78188
Journal
Traffic Digest and Review Dated: (December 1969) Pages: 1-6
Date Published
1969
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the feasibility of a law allowing a prearrest breath test to determine driver alcohol consumption similar to the British one in terms of constitutional protections afforded individuals in the United States.
Abstract
The rising highway death and injury toll and a greater public awareness that a substantial portion of this problem can be attributed to drunk drivers have intensified legislative action to remedy the situation. A total of 26 States have already passed implied consent legislation. In search for a legal tool to assist the police in their investigation of driving while intoxicated cases, legislators and safety officials are examining the feasibility of a law similar to the one enacted in the United Kingdom, the Road Safety Act of 1967. The British statute provides that an officer may require any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle to provide a specimen for a breath test if the officer has reasonable cause to suspect him/her of having alcohol in his/her body or to suspect him/her of having committed a moving violation, or if an accident occurs. The article suggests that the constitutional issues of self incrimination, unreasonable search and seizure, and due process, which could be raised in breath test cases, involve judicial questions determined through consideration of set factual situations. Therefore, it is difficult to predict their application unless the exact factual situation is known. However, a properly drawn statute providing for an investigative breath test following an accident or based upon reasonable suspicion of drunk driving does not appear to present insurmountable constitutional barriers. The article includes 34 footnotes and a draft statute.