Driving Under Influence Prosecutions
What is DUI?
Driving Under the Influence (DUI), also called Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), refers to operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs beyond legal limits. DUI laws are designed to reduce traffic accidents and fatalities caused by impaired driving.
Key Elements in DUI Prosecutions
Operation or Control: Proof the defendant was driving or in control of the vehicle.
Impairment: Evidence the defendant’s ability was impaired by alcohol/drugs.
Legal Limit: Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) above legal threshold (commonly 0.08%).
Procedural Compliance: Lawful stop, detention, and evidence collection.
Common Types of Evidence
Field Sobriety Tests (FST)
Breathalyzer or Blood Tests
Police Officer Testimony and Observations
Video Evidence (Body cam, dashcam)
Witness testimony
Challenges in DUI Prosecutions
Validity and reliability of chemical tests.
Proper administration and calibration of breathalyzers.
Consent and warrant issues for blood tests.
Chain of custody for evidence.
Interpretation of field sobriety tests.
Detailed Case Law Analysis
1. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013)
Facts:
Police took a blood sample from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant, arguing that the natural metabolization of alcohol constituted an exigent circumstance.
Legal Issue:
Whether the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream always justifies a warrantless blood draw.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that the natural metabolization of alcohol does not automatically create an exigent circumstance to bypass the warrant requirement.
Significance:
Affirmed that warrantless blood draws are unconstitutional absent exigent circumstances beyond natural alcohol dissipation, reinforcing Fourth Amendment protections.
2. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016)
Facts:
Defendant refused a blood test and argued that such refusals cannot be criminally punished without a warrant.
Legal Issue:
Whether states can criminalize refusal of breath or blood tests without a warrant.
Decision:
Court ruled breath tests may be administered without a warrant and refusal can be penalized, but blood tests require a warrant or consent.
Significance:
Distinguished between breath and blood tests, affirming breathalyzer testing as less invasive.
3. State v. Robinson, 2007 Ohio 6073 (Ohio Ct. App.)
Facts:
The defendant challenged the reliability of field sobriety tests and breathalyzer results.
Legal Issue:
Admissibility and reliability of standardized field sobriety tests.
Decision:
Court held field sobriety tests are admissible but must be properly administered by trained officers.
Significance:
Stressed the importance of proper administration and training for test reliability in DUI prosecutions.
4. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
Facts:
Not a DUI case specifically but pivotal for all criminal prosecutions.
Legal Issue:
Standard of proof required in criminal cases.
Decision:
The Supreme Court established “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the standard.
Significance:
Applies to DUI cases: Prosecution must prove impairment or BAC above legal limits beyond reasonable doubt.
5. People v. Woods, 94 N.Y.2d 242 (1999)
Facts:
Defendant argued that the breathalyzer equipment was improperly calibrated.
Legal Issue:
Whether improper calibration affects admissibility of breathalyzer evidence.
Decision:
The court ruled improperly calibrated breathalyzer results are inadmissible.
Significance:
Emphasizes maintenance and calibration requirements for chemical test evidence.
6. State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011)
Facts:
Challenge to reliability and scientific validity of field sobriety tests.
Legal Issue:
Whether field sobriety tests meet the Frye standard for scientific evidence admissibility.
Decision:
Court ruled that standardized field sobriety tests have sufficient scientific foundation but require proper administration.
Significance:
Supports the admissibility of FST but sets standards for expert testimony and training.
7. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)
Facts:
Defendant was questioned roadside about suspicion of DUI without Miranda warnings.
Legal Issue:
Whether roadside questioning constitutes custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.
Decision:
Supreme Court held brief roadside questioning is not custodial interrogation, so Miranda warnings are not required.
Significance:
Allows officers to ask initial questions without warnings, facilitating DUI investigations.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Legal Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri v. McNeely (2013) | U.S. Supreme Court | Warrant for blood draws | Warrant required absent exigency | Strong Fourth Amendment protection |
| Birchfield v. ND (2016) | U.S. Supreme Court | Consent for breath vs. blood | Breath no warrant needed, blood yes | Differentiated test types for warrants |
| State v. Robinson (2007) | Ohio Ct. App. | Reliability of field sobriety | Tests admissible with proper admin | Importance of officer training |
| In re Winship (1970) | U.S. Supreme Court | Burden of proof in criminal | Beyond reasonable doubt standard | Applies to DUI prosecutions |
| People v. Woods (1999) | New York | Breathalyzer calibration | Uncalibrated tests inadmissible | Calibration vital for chemical test evidence |
| State v. Henderson (2011) | New Jersey | Scientific validity of FST | FST admissible with safeguards | Standards for scientific evidence in DUI |
| Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) | U.S. Supreme Court | Miranda warnings roadside | Not required for brief questioning | Helps law enforcement questioning |
Additional Notes on DUI Evidence
Blood and Breath Tests: Must comply with legal standards for collection, analysis, and reporting.
Field Sobriety Tests: Include horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk-and-turn, one-leg stand.
Video Evidence: Increasingly important in verifying officer observations and test administration.
Implied Consent Laws: Drivers consent to testing by driving; refusal penalties vary by jurisdiction.
Expert Witnesses: Often testify on effects of alcohol/drugs on driving ability.
Conclusion
DUI prosecutions rely heavily on scientific testing and procedural compliance. Courts balance public safety with individual constitutional rights, particularly regarding search and seizure. As testing technology advances, courts continue refining admissibility and reliability standards to ensure fair trials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments