Still a Bad LawBy Eugene C. Puliam, The Phoenix Gazette July 9, 1977 In five weeks a new Arizona implied consent law takes effect, replacing an earlier version that a federal court, as was expected, found unconstitutional. The new law enacted by the Legislature in anticipation of the court ruling, is little improvement, however; it still tramples on individual liberty. Under the old law, supposedly the end-all answer to the drunken driving problem, the state deemed that by the act of driving a car the citizen granted consent to take a chemical test if suspected of driving while intoxicated. Refusal to take the test resulted in automatic suspension of the suspect's driver's license. The citizen could appeal, but couldn't drive legally until the suspension was voided, administratively or by the courts. The Gazette predicted at the time the old law was under consideration that it would not hold up in court because under the American way the state cannot grand a citizen's consent to anything. The court found that the implied consent law violated due process of law because it didn't not provide for a day in court. The new law does provide for a hearing, but the citizen goes there guilty, required to show cause why his license should not be suspended. It would be surprising indeed if the courts hold such a charade to constitute due process. If they do, presumably the state could require a citizen caught with tools that might be used in a burglary to show cause why he should be allowed on the streets. There is almost as much a right to drive as to walk, qualified only by considerations of public safety that enables the state to require divers licenses. To be sure, the drunken driver should be kept off the road, but the implied consent law doesn't accomplish that. The new law will operate exactly as the old one did, only to keep people who refuse to take chemical tests off the road. |
  |
|||||||||||
|
The implied consent law is no real aid to law enforcement. The conviction rate on drivers arrested by the Arizona Highway Patrol was as high before the implied consent law was passed as it has been since, around 96 percent. The implied consent law would be an intolerable infringement on American liberty even if it accomplished something by way of increasing convictions. Since it doesn't, the law is a legislative Absurdity. ...And a Law Being Misused In addition to the faults of implied consent laws outlined in the editorial above, a related fault in connection with the operation of the old Arizona implied consent law was beginning to surface. That would be the misuse of the law as a instrument for plea bargaining, or to exert leverage on defendants in drunken driving cases. A most flagrant example of such misuse was called to our attention by a defendant who refused to take the breathalyzer test. A few days after his arrest, he says he was told that if he pleaded guilty he would be fined $110, lose seven points and would not have his driver's license suspended. He refused this offer. About five minutes before his case came to trial, he says, the prosecutor made him the same offer. When he again refused, he was told the affidavit on his refusal to consent to the test would be filed and it would be seen to that his license was suspended. The defendant was found not guilty, the affidavit was filed and the license suspended. The defendant appealed but when he showed for an administrative hearing, he was informed that, because the implied consent law had been found unconstitutional in the meantime, there would be no hearing. How widespread such abuse of the implied consent law may be is unknown. Surely it is a blatant perversion of the law's intent to use it as either a pleading club or bribe. Any misuse of this sort should be guarded against when the new law takes effect. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
