1. The DUI Exception to the Constitution
California DUI attorney, Lawrence Taylor, speaks on behalf Constitutional infringements regarding DUI cases in America, otherwise known as, The DUI Exception to the Constitution . He presents his case through the ineffectiveness of the current system, reluctancy for public officials to value responsibility over public policy, and scientific flaws in the legal system regarding DUI's. He then emphasizes the dangers that such pressure groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving or MADD’s, advocacy will have on our individual liberties. Through the presentation of Court decisions, Taylor reveals how easily revocable these Constitutional Rights actually are through inadequate justification and how they are being increasingly abandoned in exchange for politically popular statutes. Taylor admits that although the number of DUI related accidents have decreased, “justifying” MADD’s push for these new regulations, pressure groups do not understand the significance that these implications have on the larger picture of American liberties. What they do not understand, he goes on to say, is that “the legal system is not concerned with truth…it is concerned with order and stability…it is concerned with expediency, not justice” (Taylor, 10). Although the majority of Taylor’s lecture, The DUI Exception to the Constitution, analyzes the the injustices of the current DUI system, his main argument alludes to the overarching idea that this lecture not simply about drunk driving. He argues that the “single greatest threat to our [American] freedom is internal” (Taylor, 1). He presents the argument that
by giving more power to this these counterintuitive extremist groups such as MADD, the precedent of the legal system will erode case by case resulting in the dismantling of our Constitution.
2. Related Cases and Correspondence
Taylor presents five cases below that outline the Supreme Court favoring public safety over individual liberties in DUI cases:
1. Sitz v Michigan (1990) :
a. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of The State of Michigan
Police Department under the rationale that the potential benefit to society of removing impaired drivers from the roads justified the violation of Fourth Amendment rights caused by checkpoints.
2. Birkimer vs. McCarty (1984):
a. The Supreme Court held that, while police officers are bound to read drivers their
Miranda rights upon arrest for DUI, they do not have to give Miranda warnings prior to asking drivers questions about how much alcohol they’ve consumed or prior to offering them to take a breath test, essentially abandoning the Fifth Amendment.
3. Neville vs. South Dakota (1983):
a. In this Fifth Amendment Case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DUI suspects
have no right to refuse a breath test. Breathalyzers can provide highly incriminating evidence in DUI cases, but, because of the Supreme Court's ruling, DUI suspects are required to submit.The Court ruled unanimously against Neville
in saying "there’s a DUI exception to the Fifth Amendment. There is no right to refuse and the prosecution can comment freely in trial upon that refusal" (Taylor, 3). After sending it back down to South Dakota, they said "If you in Washington will not protect our citizens, we will rely upon our own state constitution” (3).
4. Trombetta vs. California (1984)
a. This 9-0 unanimous decision in favor of California is commonly known as the Trombetta
Advisement. The Court decides that Trom betta’s Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated and it does not require law enforcement agencies to preserve breath samples of suspected drunk drivers as evidence for trial. The rationale behind this decision was that, “the state’s duty to preserve evidence is limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. Breathalyzer tests are reliable and the exculpatory value of breath samples are very low” (Oyez). So although in any other case, police are required to save evidence, this is the one exception in which it is not necessary, despite the low cost and ease of doing so.
5. Blanton vs. North Las Vegas (1989):
a. A Sixth Amendment related-DUI incident which resulted in a punishment of six months of
jail, fines and suspension of Blanton’s driver's license. Despite those punishments in a unanimous Court decision of 9-0 saying that, "there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a DUI case, so long as it’s not punishable by more than six months in jail." (Taylor, 4). The significance of this case is that the “right to a jury” is no longer applicable.
3. Elements of the Constitution Violated Through the DUI Exception Clause
As far as the US Constitution is concerned, it is evident that DUI searches, especially the
use of chemical tests to ascertain BAC levels, and being put in a situation where you can
incriminate yourself are unconstitutional and hence, illegal , and the system has already deteriorated in such a way where you essentially have no voice.The five cases referenced above illustrate illegal searches and seizures through DUI sobriety checkpoints and breath tests , no right to see a lawyer , denial of the right to jury trial , presumptions of guilt , defective breath tests blindly accepted into evidence, scientific facts banned by law from the courtroom, routine violations of due process and basic fairness in trials. The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures (Amendment IV). The Constitution allows two exceptions in which need to be fulfilled for searches and seizures to be determined legal in terms of the Constitution. These being; having a legal warrant and probable cause. And while there is probable cause for stopping you on suspicion of driving while under the influence of an intoxicating substance or a perception altering substance, the lack of a necessary warrant makes the whole activity unconstitutional.
That being said, in Sitz, the roadblocks failed to meet either of the Fourth Amendment’s element requirements and the Court defined this case as that of an unreasonable seizure, yet the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other drivers, they were a necessary means of protection. This goes to show that individual rights are seen inferior to that of the majority. The Fourth Amendment is also violated by Implied Consent to take a breathalyzer as outlined above in Neville vs. South Dakota, as technically your breath is a bodily function, and warrants are required for blood and urine tests, yet breathalyzers, proven to be the least inaccurate of all of the tests, do not need a warrant and in many states are sufficient enough evidence alone for incrimination under the justification that a warrantless search is necessary because time is of the essence. The inability to refuse a breathalyzer also goes against the Fifth
Amendment in terms of self incrimination. The Fifth protects individuals from being forced to incriminate themselves, giving them the right to remain silent. By practicing this right to remain silent, there should be no legal ramifications. Yet, the DUI Exception Clause accepts that by practicing your Fifth Amendment, you are presumably guilty and this refusal can be used against you in trial. One should know that they have this right to remain silent, because it is also a Constitutional right to be read your Miranda Rights prior to being arrested or detained according to the Fifth Amendment, yet the Court decides that DUI’s are an exception to this, and there is some grey area as to when your rights need be read.
The Sixth Amendment reads, “ the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” (Amendment VI). However in some states you are not even allocated the option of a jury, or the right to face your accuser, which in some cases is “science” in which the police are not even required to keep as evidence. This is in clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, however is brushed over being classified as a “DUI exception.”
The question remains, why DUI’s? What distinguishes DUI’s from other crimes that are still granted their rights? This in itself is a violation as “the Constitution does not reserve or limit any of our rights because of a specific criminal charge” (Oyez,1), meaning that any criminal, despite the severity or lack of severity of the crime should be treated the same. How can an exception to a crime, not criminals, strip individual rights?
4. Thesis Analysis
It is evident to any reader that Lawrence Taylor does an exceptional job in addressing the flaws in the in drunk driving litigation, providing scientific and logical arguments to back up his
arguments regarding the defects of breath alcohol analysis and innocent convictions. I think his strongest argument in terms of analyzing DUI procedures, was that through these unconstitutional statutes, they deviated from the original intent; to protect citizens from impaired driving, to what is now is defined by criminalization solely on unreliable breath technology, that does not even measure impairment. This example of the slippery slope fallacy, is essentially, a smaller scale example of the overarching idea of how easily the actual purpose or intent of a law, or in this case the Constitution, can deviate from its original purpose, proving to be ineffective.
Taylor’s argument has many valid viewpoints that are honestly quite concerning from a citizen’s viewpoint. I think it is first important to recognize the debate Taylor outlines regarding the Court’s illogical preference for public safety over individual liberties. MADD, and the Court, are siding with public sovereignty, or the concept of social contract and the idea that government should be for the benefit of its citizens, meaning that if government is not protecting the people, it should be dissolved. However, as Taylor argues, these extremist groups do not see the counterintuitive significance in their actions. Many representatives and justices do however recognize the possible implications, which is often seen in the dissenting opinions of these cases. However I think Taylor is accurate in saying that that they system has molded itself around the influence of these majority groups and representatives are held to a certain standard by these groups in order to seek reelection or approval rates.
While Taylor recognizes this, in a realist sense of how the current day political system functions, I think he is correct in placing inevitably more value on the individual rights. It is a carefully handled concept, as it often comes across as supporting intoxicated driving, but he is doing no such thing. Although the DUI Exception to the Constitution is evidently an important
issue that needs addressed, Taylor is successful in selling his point through his slippery slope fallacy of “what ifs”, given our legal precedent system, it should make listeners wonder, “could I be next?” Is this just about drunk drivers? Will there gun checkpoints in the near future to ensure gun safety? Male drivers pose a higher threat for fatality on the roads, should we ban men driving altogether in preservation of the majority’s right to feel safe on the road? Rights that are lost in a DUI case today can be lost in any other case tomorrow.
Going off of the aforementioned possibility, I lastly want to address Taylor’s thoughts on the idea that you cannot selectively apply the protections of the Constitution to certain criminal cases. This is the overarching argument that drives his thesis by alluding to the idea that by discrediting the Constitution for one instance, discredits its legitimacy as a governing doctrine in itself. I agree with Lawrence Taylor’s lecture, specifically focusing on the consequences that MADD and drunk driving has on our country and political entity as a whole.