New
Concept: No License Suspension if You're Not Guilty
Information
courtesy of Lawrence Taylor - DUIblog
In
an earlier post I discussed one of many "DUI exceptions to
the Constitution" -- being punished twice for the same DUI
offense. Due to federal "carrot-and-stick" pressures,
the states today impose an immediate suspension of the driver's
license if a driver is arrested for DUI and either tests .08% or
higher or refuses to be tested. The two proceedings and penalties
are separate and unrelated: if the charges are dropped in criminal
court, for example, the license will remain suspended (and conversely,
if the license suspension is reversed in an administrative hearing,
the criminal court may nevertheless impose another suspension).
The courts initially had some trouble with this double jeopardy/punishment
problem (some found it to be a violation of the Constitution), but
eventually sidestepped it by simply playing with words: the immediate
suspension is not a "punishment" but rather an "administrative
sanction".
But
now along comes some North Dakota legislator with a frightening
idea: if a citizen is not guilty of DUI, why should his license
be suspended?
From
the Bismarck Tribune (Feb. 25, 2005):
North
Dakotans who aren't successfully prosecuted for drunk driving
should have any license suspension wiped from their record, says
a state senator who believes Transportation Department officials
treat some drivers unjustly.
"If
you're not convicted, a jury of six peers says you're not guilty,
guess what? Your license is still gone", said Senator Tom
Trenbeath, R-Cavalier....
It
got its first hearing in the Transportation Committee on Friday,
where it drew opposition from parents and the state Department
of Transportation, which handles license suspensions for DUI.
If
a prosecutor decides on a plea bargain, or a jury feels sorry
for someone, a drunken driver could have the slate wiped clean,
agency
|
