Comments on: Judge Rules Virginia’s DWI Law Unconstitutional

By: william m. dikant

william m. dikant — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:03:25 +0000

Hey Herb, As I'm not a constitutional lawyer, just WHERE in it does it contain the right to Drive? A tax, get real,wait till one of these "HIGHWAY TERRORISTS" kill or cripple one of your loved one's,what be your word's then?

By: Ralph Thayer

Ralph Thayer — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:09:28 +0000

Lest we forget, the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 1 and 35 is motor vehicle collisions. Indeed, the biggest killer of our children is the American driver. Where this a medical disease, quarantine would trump any "right" you thought you had to "get to work, go to the store and pick up our kids..." etc. Alas it is not a medical disease but a cultural sickness -- in short, a mass brainwashing that "what's good for General Motors" is good, period.

Because about 3,000 died on 9/11 we have gone to war twice. But more than 40,000 die every year on our highways, and we bitch about our right to disregard speed limits and/or drive drunk.

Even when sober, few Americans care to observe or even be knowledgable of the simplest rules of the road and safety regulations. For instance, if it's raining so you switch on the wipers, what else does the law require? Next rainstorm, count the number of drivers with wipers on and headlights off. They are all in violation, and most - I venture to say - oblivious to the requirement.

Americans worship a molten idol, their automobile, as Providence. Historians of the future will look back on this as our style of human sacrifice to a mythical god of prosperity.

Which would you give up first: your right to freedom of religion or your car keys?

See what I mean?

There is little anyone can do about it, even if one cared. My condolences, in advance, to readers who will mourn the loss of loved ones to a motor vehicle collision. The world will little note nor long remember your grief over a death so utterly vain.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:16:55 +0000

Steven: I can't disagree. SCOTUS has construed the right against self-incrimination incredibly narrowly, unfortunately. The problem is that we have created this bizarre concept in the law of "privilege" versus "right" and put driving in the former category.

By: Steven Plunk

Steven Plunk — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:13:52 +0000

The public's right to be secure in person and property as a constitutional protection means secure from governmental intrusion. Forcing drivers to blow into Breathalyzers or forfeit rights is the real violation. For years DMV's across the nation have been falsely telling us driving is a "privilege" not a "right". What a bunch of hooey. We all have a right to get to work, go to the store and pick up our kids by using our autos. The idea government grants us that right as a privilege is nonsense. Judges have forsaken being true judges and have become instruments of public policy. They often do what the think is good for society rather than what is good for the individual and the law. Maybe more of them should be driving trucks.

By: legion

legion — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:44:28 +0000

IANAL, but from what little I do know, this sounds like a conflict of constitutional interests - specifically, the accused's right to a presumption of innocence vs. the general public's right to be secure in person & property. Sure, a specific BAC # might not be iron-clad, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence of impairment in a particular individual, but it's a pretty good indicator. The question is - is the uncertainty large enough to keep the guy free, and potentially endanger anyone he might run into, or is it small enough that the imposition on the accused's rights is acceptable?

By: McGehee

McGehee — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:41:35 +0000

The burden of proof is on the defendant to demonstrate that he is not guilty.

The reality in any prosecution is, if you don't mount a defense and succeed in raising a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, you get convicted unless the prosecution has totally screwed up its own case. That's not the same as a presumption of guilt. And relying on the prosecution to screw up isn't exactly a wise strategy.

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:38:23 +0000

Speeding tickets, like many other motor vehicle infractions, are a civil offense and have a different burden of proof. I believe Judge O'Flaherty's ruling is correct, as far as it applies to criminal charges. But under our civil law, Virginia could still automatically suspend the license of any driver testing over 0.8%.

By: Herb

Herb — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:57:01 +0000

DC Loser:

Right on.

I just wonder when the American prople are giong to get smart and realize that drunk driving laws are mostly an additional tax on the people. The lawyers don't want any changes either, they are making a fortune. That Virgania judge should get a medel for heroism by perserving our constitutional rights.

By: aTypical Joe: A gay New Yorker living in the rural south.

aTypical Joe: A gay New Yorker living in the rural south. — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:42:58 +0000

Driving laws and the presumption of innocence

A Virginia judge is ruling that the state's DUI statutes violate the 5th Amendment: A Fairfax County judge who believes Virginia's drunken driving laws are unconstitutional has begun dismissing cases, including five DWI cases in a week, and has threa...

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:39:13 +0000

Hurray to Judge O'Flaherty. First the stupid DC law, now it's Fairfax's turn. I'm not supporting the right to DWI, but we should have the same burden of proof on the State in these cases as in all other criminal cases.