Although the verdict wasn’t reached in a Missouri court, a recent DWI story out of another state is reminiscent of a Missouri case that will soon be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The primary legal question in both cases is whether or not it is a violation of constitutional rights to force drunk driving suspects to submit to a blood test without a warrant.

In the out-of-state case, a man charged for drunk driving was finally acquitted after years of appeals. After he refused to take a roadside breath test, the man was brought to a hospital for a blood test. In order to obtain the blood sample, a police officer sat on the man’s chest while a nurse drew his blood.

The state court of appeals ruled that it was a violation of the man’s Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against warrantless searches and seizures. For many years, police departments throughout the country have required those suspected of DWU to submit to blood tests if they refuse a breath test. They argue that they don’t have time to obtain a warrant before the blood-alcohol content wears off.

While automatic blood tests have been a common practice for quite some time, many argue that police officers do have enough time to obtain warrants, which could invalidate the evidence used in court.

This summer, the nation’s top court will finally hand down their ruling in the Missouri blood-draw case. As those charged with DWI after refusing a breath test move to trial, the forthcoming judgment is likely to play a major role in the success of defense strategies and validity of blood evidence collected by police.

Source: Winston-Salem Journal, “Winston-Salem man who alleged that police violated his rights acquitted of DWI,” Michael Hewlett, March 15, 2013

• Our firm has experience handling a variety of drunk driving cases. To find out more, please check out our St. Louis DWI page.

It’s no secret that serious fines, jail time, and lengthy or permanent license suspensions can follow a conviction on drunk driving charges. The penalty for being found guilty of DUI or DWI can potentially upend a person’s entire life, putting a brake on not only their finances and mobility, but also marrying them to a negative social stigma that can last long after a sentence has been served.

Part of a wider attempt to more comprehensively change and correct the behavior of those caught up in America’s court system, relatively new and nontraditional DWI courts have been increasingly commended for their success rate. Similar to the “drug courts” that have seen success both in Missouri and across the nation in their emphasis on treatment rather than punishment, these courts attempt to address the medical and social causes of one’s drunk driving, rather than simply doling out fines and jail time.

DWI courts frequently target behaviors of addiction and recidivism amongst drunk drivers. In these cases, drivers are redirected into proactive treatment programs and spared from fines or the loss of their license. “There is simply no better way for a community to take a stand against drunk driving than to implement a DWI court,” asserted the Senior Director at the National Center for Driving While Intoxicated Courts.

The NCDC in its own reports have noted that those treated in DWI courts were up to 65 percent less likely to be rearrested for a new drunk driving offense. The center underlines the comprehensive treatment courts’ ability to stop repeat offenses, protect public safety, and save both defendants and taxpayers money.

DWI courts will likely appear more and more frequently as a sentencing option, perhaps even a priority, in drunk driving cases. These and other sentence alternatives can be explored with the help of a defense attorney,

Source: Parkersburg News and Sentinel, “DUI fatalities down nationwide,” Pamela Brust, Dec. 27, 2012

• DWI courts may be the perfect outcome of a drunk driving arrest and charge. For more information, contact our St. Louis DWI defense page.

When a person is pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, the common practice is for an officer to ask the driver to submit to a breathalyzer blood-alcohol test. While other sobriety tests such as field coordination examinations and direct syringe extraction of blood for medical testing are available, most often the breathalyzer test is relied upon to determine intoxication.

Drivers in Missouri, indeed in all 50 states, have the right to refuse a breathalyzer test after being pulled over, unless an officer has obtained a warrant for the test’s use. Usually this refusal results in an automatic suspension of drivers’ licenses.

However, in some cases, officers might ignore both a driver’s requests and the absence of a warrant, moving forward with breath and/or blood tests at their own discretion. Just such a case, stemming from an October 2010 DUI investigation, has now made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pulled over by a Missouri patrolman on Oct. 3, 2010, a Cape Girardeau man refused to submit to a breathalyzer test, but was taken by an officer to a nearby hospital and given a direct, needle-based blood test anyway. The results were clear: the man’s blood-alcohol level sat at .154 percent-well above the legal limit of .08.

A local judge initially threw out the hospital’s test result on account of the lack of a warrant, but appeals and contestations have brought the matter all the way to the highest court in the land. An attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, who has come to the support of the Missouri defendant, has stressed drivers’ Fourth Amendment right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

Justice Sotomayor made note of the difficult precedent that may be set by a ruling that allows breathalyzer testing despite a driver’s refusal and the absence of a warrant, noting that such approval could quickly be extended to syringe tests-a highly invasive search.

The outcome of this Supreme Court will have far-reaching implications for all DUI and DWI defendants, both in Missouri and across the country. When the complicated legal questions of warrants, consent, and constitutional rights come into play, the heightened insight of a drunk driving defense attorney can help guide a defendant to the most favorable outcome.

Source: St. Louis Beacon, “Supreme Court hears arguments in issouri case involving warrantless blood test,” Robert Koenig, Jan. 9, 2013

Earlier this month we brought you information on the National Transportation Safety Board’s call for mandatory ignition interlock devices’ inclusion for all DUI and DWI convictions, including first-time offenders. Now it seems another automotive travel association has echoed the NTSB’s statements, making it all the more likely that sweeping national legislation may soon be enacted.

The automotive non-profit organization AAA last week voiced its official support for ignition interlocks as a mandatory sentence term for all drunk driving convictions. Such a stipulation has been approved in Missouri and will take effect next fall. However, 33 states currently do not yet legally require the locks to be assigned to every convicted DUI or DWI offender. AAA called for this to change.

Citing similar reasons of safety as those noted by the NTSB earlier in December, AAA asserted that more lives can be saved with the inclusion of the lock devices.

Both the Distilled Spirits Council and, as previously noted, the American Beverage Institute have come out in opposition to the across-the-board use of ignition locks as a punishment, instead supporting the measure for those found to have a blood-alcohol content of .15 percent or higher. Those found to have lower levels of intoxication, the groups note, should be spared from the installation of locks.

While the nation continues to debate the virtue of ignition locks as a mandatory punishment for DUI and DWI offenders, Missouri residents don’t have much time before the measure becomes law statewide.

In addition to locks, which will follow a person convicted of drunk driving charges for the rest of their life, steep fines and formidable jail time can also come as a result of a “guilty” verdict. The help of a drunk driving criminal defense attorney, however, can help better the chance of a lessened charge and more agreeable sentencing.

Source: LA Times, “AAA joins call for ignition devices for first-time drunk drivers,” Jerry Hirsch, Dec. 26, 2012

• Understanding the consequences of a DWI conviction is the first step toward a successful defense. For information on how to avoid strict sentencing, contact our St. Louis DWI law page.

For those who have been convicted of a repeat DWI or DUI charge, an ignition lock may not be a new concept. Breath-activated ignition interlock devices are frequently included in the sentences of drunk driving cases, necessitating that a driver be below a strictly limited level of intoxication before being allowed to start their vehicle and get on the road.

This form of extended punitive regulation may be extended nationwide to every motorist convicted of drunk driving in the not so distant future, if the National Transportation Safety Board gets its way. Last week, the board recommended that every state assign an ignition lock in every DWI/DUI conviction, including first-time offenses.

The practice of requiring an in-car breathalyzer test for all convicted drunk drivers already exists in 17 states, and is taken to be the best and most consistent means of curbing alcohol-related vehicle deaths, which make up about a third of the more than 32,000 American traffic deaths each year. The interlock devices usually allow a vehicle start only if the driver is below a .02 or .04 percent blood alcohol content.

Other developments are also taking place, ones that Missouri residents facing a drunk driving charge may want to watch closely. The NTSB is currently pressuring the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to accelerate collaborative research with auto companies toward implementing a system that can identify intoxication based on infrared light. The technology would examine a driver’s blood alcohol content as the vehicle was started, sometimes literally at the push of a button.

Some have criticized the NTSB’s push for an ignition interlock in all drunk driving cases. The American Beverage Institute asserted last week that such devices should only be required for “the most chronic of offenders.” One representative compared the punishment to speed limits, noting “you don’t punish somebody going five miles over the speed limit the same way you do somebody going 50 miles over.”

Although extended debate may continue over the practicality of mandatory ignition locks, the mandatory installation of one is a clear and obvious intrusion on one’s life following a drunk driving conviction. In order to better the chance of a reduced sentence and retained control over future driving, contacting an attorney should be the first action for those charged with a DWI.

Source: Washington Post, “NTSB recommends every state require ignition interlocks for all convicted drunken drivers,” Dec. 11, 2012