DRINKING, DRIVING, AND THE LAW

• NCJ Number: 69050
• Journal: Criminal Justice Abstracts Volume: 12 Issue: 2 Dated: (JUNE 1980) Pages: 261-288
• Author(s): J W LITTLE
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 28 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A REVIEW OF AND COMMENTARY ON LITERATURE PUBLISHED BETWEEN JULY 1974 AND 1979 THAT PERTAINS TO LEGAL ASPECTS OF DRUNKEN DRIVING AND ALCOHOL INVOLVEMENT IN HIGHWAY CRASHES IS PRESENTED.

Abstract

WRITINGS ARE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CATEGORIES: LEGAL ISSUES UNDER CHEMICAL TEST AND IMPLIED CONSENT LAWS, DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES ABOUT ANTI-DRUNKEN DRIVING LAWS AND PROGRAMS, CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF CRASHES CAUSED BY DRUNKEN DRIVING, AND THE EFFECT OF APPLICABLE LAWS ON DRIVER BEHAVIOR. REGARDING THE FIRST CATEGORY, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS DEALT TWO TIMES WITH CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARISING FROM THE FORCIBLE TAKING OF BLOOD FROM A DRIVER WHO HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN A CRASH. IN BOTH CASES THE DRIVER LATER CHALLENGED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE UNDER DUE PROCESS AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISIONS. TWO WRITERS HAVE EXAMINED QUESTIONS RAISED BY THESE CASES. THEY INDICATE THAT STATE COURTS DIVIDE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF REFUSAL EVIDENCE QUESTIONS WHEN NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED BY STATUTE. NUMEROUS ARTICLES EXAMINE THE DETAILED OPERATION OF ANTI-DRUNKEN DRIVING LAWS IN SEVERAL STATES. KING AND TIPPERMAN TRACE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW YORK STATUTORY AND CASE LAW. THEY POINT OUT THAT LEGISLATURES, JUDGES, AND THE PUBLIC ARE HESITANT TO IMPOSE SEVERE PENALTIES WHERE NO SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF DRUNKEN DRIVING HAVE RESULTED. TYPICAL DRIVING-WHILE-INTOXICATED STATUTES REQUIRE NO PARTICULAR MENTAL STATE AS AN ELEMENT OF THE DRUNKEN DRIVING CRIME. MANY WRITERS HAVE CRITICIZED THE FAILUREOF CRIMINAL LAWS TO REVERSE THE INCREASING TREND OF DRUNKEN DRIVING CASES. HOWEVER, OTHER AUTHORS, INCLUDING ROSS, MISNER, AND WARD ARGUE THAT IT IS EFFICACIOUS TO INCREASE THE SEVERITY OF THE LAW BEYOND A CERTAIN LEVEL. THEY BELIEVE THAT LAW CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE WHEN IT DEVIATES TOO FAR FROM THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE PEOPLE GOVERNED. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.