Washington DUI Trial Law : Washington State DWI Lawyer & Attorney : Francisco Duarte : Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Kirkland

      Two days ago a young man was sentenced to prison for the fatal death of a good man in a drunk driving incident. It was the young man’s first and only incident with the law, not even a traffic infraction in his 14 year driving history, which resulted in a tragic transformation for all. The victim’s family suffered the loss of a fantastic person, known to all as a great father, loving husband, and loyal friend. At the same time, the young man had a defining moment in his life, which takes him to prison, leaving behind a cadre of people who adore him and who will miss his kindness, generosity, and loving manner.

      The pain is pervasive. For most it comes from the experience of the loss of a loved one and for the young man it comes from knowing that his kind soul is responsible for the taking of life.

      These events are devastating all around and there are no winners. This is why I was surprised to hear about the jubilation outside of the courtroom when the young man in handcuffs was taken from the courtroom by marshals to begin his journey behind bars. It is very understandable that the victim’s family would experience a sense of righteous vindication upon the imposition of sentence. This sense of “closure” would bring a welcome relief to a painful chapter in the life of those left behind. Anyone can appreciate such a moment.

      However, what happen next was incomprehensible. A few piercing words rose from the high-fiving crowd and lingered above those celebrating in complete jubilation:

“…let’s go have a drink and celebrate…” 

It must have been a mistake. How could any person witnessing the events inside the courtroom and knowing how alcohol played a role in ruining two lives speak such words? I suppose sometimes we loose perspective on things and when humanity is called upon to be humane and humanitarian, we find the darkest side of ourselves.

      Personal responsibility and self reflection is required. One program that could bring sound perspective on the loss experienced by all and raise our collective awareness to the dangers of driving after drinking is the DUI Victim Panels. These panels are staffed by persons who were either victims, related to victims, or accused of alcohol offenses. They share with the audience heart wrenching stories that leave a strong impression about the the dangers of mixing alcohol with driving.   The Legislature should consider requiring all first time drivers and/or licensees to attend a session of the DUI Victim Panels.  The Legislature should also bring these programs into high schools and the workplace. Instead of promoting laws that do not work, it should consider programs that do work!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

            The charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) requires proof that the driver was impaired or affected by alcohol consumption. This means that the quality and the quantity of the evidence must demonstrate that the driver’s mental or physical functions were impaired to safely operate and control a car.[1] Therefore, it is irrelevant to the charge of DUI to produce evidence that does not measure or demonstrate driving impairment.  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (hereafter NHTSA), standardized field sobriety tests (FSTs) do not measure driving impairment.  The common roadside tests include the walk and turn test, the one leg stand test, and the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.  Sometimes police officers will add the ABC test, the Rhomberg Balance test, the finger to nose test, and the counting backwards test.

            In fact, these agility tests are not “sobriety” tests in spite of their label. This is a government-sponsored “name” for a battery of agility tests to mold the public’s perception in believing that the tests do something that they do not. These tests were designed and are solely used to help an officer estimate a driver’s alcohol concentration and establish probable cause to arrest based on their prediction of an alcohol concentration. See DOT HS 808 839, Final Report, Validation of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery at BACs Below 0.10 Percent. In other words, the roadside agility tests were developed for the sole purpose of assisting a police officer to make an arrest decision because arrest decisions must be reasonable and must be based on articulable facts.

            While many courts and prosecutors consider the roadside tests to be conclusive on the issue of intoxication, nothing could be further from the truth. A good friend of mine cannot and would not “pass” any of the roadside tests because he can barely walk due to all sorts of medical issues, including his weight, but he is a fine driver.  As noted in the NHTSA report:

Many individuals, including some judges, believe that the purpose of a field sobriety test is to measure driving impairment. For this reason, they tend to expect tests to possess “face validity,” that is, tests that appear to be related to actual driving tasks….Driving a motor vehicle is a very complex activity that involves a wide variety of tasks and operator capabilities. It is unlikely that complex human performance, such as that required to safely drive an automobile, can be measured at roadside. The constraints imposed by roadside testing conditions were recognized by the developers of NHTSA’s SFST battery. As a consequence, they pursued the development of tests that would provide statistically valid and reliable indicators of a driver’s BAC, rather than indicators of driving impairment.

Therefore, roadside tests do not measure driving impairment. These are not sobriety tests, no matter what the government would like us to believe. Roadside tests are not relevant to the question of whether a driver was impaired or affected to safely operate his vehicle due to alcohol or drug consumption. They are only relevant to answer the legal question about whether or not an arrest was lawful, a standard far below the proof required to convict a person of a crime. Moreover, its use is highly prejudicial because the government would attempt to incorrectly proffer the results of the roadside tests to establish driving impairment due to alcohol or drug consumption.[2]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks