I’m Fighting MADD!

I am going to respond, once and for all, to the people who respond to this blog with anger and threats.  Of course, I appreciate that drunk driving is dangerous, tragic and unnecessary.  I have three children who I pray will never drive drunk and who will never be the victim of a drunk driver.  Those of you who wish harm on them are sick, mean and perverted.  Drunk driving is a crime and should be a crime.  However, I do not believe that we should abandon our constitutional protections.  We should not make exceptions to the Constitution for DUI offenses. “It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” (Thomas Paine)

We have seen the loss of Fourth,  Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections due to DUI hysteria, promoted by well-funded neo-prohibitionists and weak-willed politicians.  We have seen an assault on the privilege of innocence.  Unlike third-world countries we do not require our citizens to prove their innocence.  When the law imposes “per se” presumptions that a person over a .08% (when this is not scientifically true) we force a person to prove their innocence.  When we take away defenses (see previous posts) and assume that every person has the same lungs or body mass index or body temperature, we again force the defendant to prove their innocence.  When we punish the defendant by taking away his license prior to trial we have lost our way!  When we ignore science by stating that your blood alcohol reading is the same three hours prior as it was three hours before, we have betrayed our ideals.  Treat each crime the same and require the State to prove its case.

I have dedicated my time and energy to defending the drunk drivers and their rights.  Why?  You should understand the importance of what is happening in this area because it sets important precedent.  Disastrous decisions in DUI law can embed themselves in law due to our tradition of common law.  When a court looks at the facts in a specific case, it applies not only statutes but decisions in appellate court cases to determine what the law is. This is the genius of, and reason for the rule of law.  Few topics are as politically “incorrect” as drunk driving. Judges have powerful pressures to rule in favor of the prosecution in DUI cases (Mothers Against Drunk Driving and their $47 million budget) are vocal in elections and in legislatures. There are few advocates for the accused or the Constitution during election campaigns.  This pressure has led to some troubling decisions:

Michigan v. Sitz The Court held that sobriety roadblocks were permissible — despite the fact that there is no exception in the Fourth Amendment for stopping citizens without reasonable suspicion.

South Dakota v. Neville The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was held inapplicable in drunk driving cases (refusing to submit to testing).

Blanton v. North Las Vegas Even though punishable by six months in jail, fines and diver’s license suspension, there is no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in a drunk driving case.

California v. Trombetta Although police normally have to save evidence, they do not have to save breath samples in DUI cases (even though it is easy and inexpensive to do so).

So what?  Again we look to precedent.  What happens today to a citizen accused of DUI will happen tomorrow to a person accused of any other crime.  In fact this has already happened.  We have seen our Ohio legislature pass unfair and constitutionally questionable, but politically popular, statutes attacking our very system, falling over themselves to look tough on drunk drivers.  It is the only crime in which the most innocent defendant is made to look as guilty as the most heinous offender.And having passed such laws relating to DUI, they are less reluctant to do so in other areas as well.

“First they came for the drunks, but I was not a drunk so I did not speak up. Then they came for the social drinker…”