In 1970 the federal government decided to solicit bids for research scientists in an attempt to develop a system of standardized "field sobriety tests." The idea behind the government's proposal was to provide police officers tools which would assist in their identification of DUI suspects and their subsequent arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a division of the United States Department of Transportation, eventually supported a group of scientists at the Southern California Research Institute (SCRI). Dr. Marcelline Burns, and Dr. Herbert Moskowitz, were the primary authors of the study and the final product, completed in 1983, resulted in NHTSA's "Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs)."
The original "SFST Manual" was published in 1984 and was very short and received little attention. Subsequently the NHTSA manuals have been updated over the years with new publications produced in 1987, 1989, 192, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2007. These standardized field sobriety tests remain the subject of great debate regarding their validity and the manner in which they are conducted, nevertheless their role in the investigation of DUIs remains an important one.
In the 1960s and 1970s the public's view of drinking and driving was not, arguable, as harsh as it is now. The late Dr. Patricia Waller, a well known advocate for public safety and researcher in the area of drinking and driving, stated that in the past "[d]runk driving was considered more or less a "folk crime," almost a rite of passage for young males. Most adults in the United States used alcohol, and most of them, at some point, drove after doing so. This is not to say that they drove drunk, but many of them undoubtedly drove when they were somewhat impaired."
The laws over the years continued to evolve and the pressure on law makers to make DUI laws stricter was too much to ignore. In 1972, Nebraska and New York passed the first laws making driving with a 0.10 blood alcohol content "illegal per se." With this type of law the prosecution need not present any evidence of the driver's impaired ability to drive to support a conviction. These laws were instituted for "public safety" reasons and based on some studies that suggested that drivers were significantly less capable of operating a motor vehicle at this level. By the end of the decade, twelve states had set an illegal per se limit, all of them at 0.10% except New Hampshire which set that state's per se limit at 0.15%. Internationally, other countries enacted per se laws well before the United States. Such laws were introduced in Norway in 1936, Sweden in 1941, Australia (1966), Great Britain in 1967, and Canada in 1969.
A new component to DUI arrests was the "Administrative License Revocation" (also referred to as an "Administrative License Suspension") law and in 1976 Minnesota became the first state to enact such a law. This law had been previously recommended by NHTSA as a manner of suspending or revoking an accused DUI driver's driving privileges regardless of whether the accused had been charged criminally. The idea behind these administrative license suspension laws was that any driver who submitted to a breath test which resulted in a level equal to or greater than the state's presumed "impairment" level would be summarily suspended or revoked for a period of time. Typically the penalties for refusing the breath test were equal to or greater than the penalties imposed if the driver did take the breath test. These laws were civil or administrative in nature in order to avoid any double jeopardy issues.
In 1982 Congress looked to focus some of their attention on the perceived drunk driving problem by passing legislation designed to allocate $125 million to states over a three-year period. The bill was signed into law in December of 1982 and allowed for incentive grants to the states if they adopted the following three legislatively mandated provisions in 23 U.S.C. §101: 1) a 0.10% per se statute; 2) a 90-day license suspension upon probable cause for first-time DUI offenders or those who refuse to take a chemical sobriety test, and 3) a minimum 48 consecutive hours in jail or 10 days community service for subsequent DUI offenses within a five year period.
In addition to the three requirements the states were also mandated to provide increased law enforcement and education efforts designed at eliminating drunk driving. States were also eligible for supplemental funds if they met additional requirements in addition to the basic incentive grants. Although the specific criteria for funding would be determined by federal and state rules, the suggested requirements were that there be: adequate statewide record-keeping regarding drunk driving convictions and license suspensions, alcohol rehabilitation and treatment programs, vehicle impoundment for any person convicted of drunk driving, alcohol safety programs which are financially self-sufficient and locally coordinated, sentence-screening authority by courts, adoption of a 21-year minimum drinking age, and adoption of the recommendations made by the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving.
Due to intense public pressure President Reagon appointed a National Commission on Drunk Driving, which issued a report recommending a number of ways to enhance the effectiveness of a national anti-drunk driving program. The most significant recommendations of the Commission included selective enforcement and judicially approved roadblocks; the abolition of plea bargaining; victim assistance and restitution programs; administrative per se license suspension; per se statutes; mandatory sentencing; the abolition of pre-conviction diversion; the strengthening of implied consent laws; and increased efficiency in court administration relating to DUI charges.
In 1984 the "Age 21 National Driving Age Law" was enacted to force states to increase the drinking age to 21. Failure to comply would cost those states millions in federal funds. Several states did initially resist but by 1986 all of the states had complied (Louisiana being the last state to comply).
In 1986 the American Bar Association (ABA) got into the act and formed a national committee to study how to deal effectively, legally and fairly with the drunk driving problem. The ABA National Committee on Drunk Driving was initially focused on the effectiveness, appropriateness and legality of the innovative sanctions and techniques proposed by the Presidential Commission, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the insurance industry and other influencial parties. A special Drunk Driving Advisory Project was also formed to evaluate enforcement techniques and alcohol related traffic offenses. The Advisory Project compiled a report entitled, Drunk Driving Laws & Enforcement: An Assessment of Effectiveness (1986).
Areas that were examined by the Project Advisory Board included roadblocks, per se legislation, preservation of scientific evidence, mandatory jail sentencing and license suspensions, abolition of plea bargaining, a national means to track license suspensions, insurance industry problems, and preservation of due process guarantees in the trial of alleged drunk drivers.
Also in 1986 MADD began its first training of volunteers to support victims of drunk drivers and to serve as "victim advocates" in court proceedings and began to use their influence on a federal level. MADD was founded in 1980 by Candice Lightner after her own personal tragedy of losing her daughter to a DUI accident. MADD supports education, advocacy and victim assistance in the DUI legal realm and are strong advocates of maintaining the per se blood alcohol content level of .08%, stronger sanctions for DUI offenders, including mandatory jail sentences, treatment for alcoholism and drug dependency issues, the installation of an ignition interlock devices, attendance at a victim impact panels (VIP), license suspensions, "sobriety checkpoints" and "saturation patrols," maintaining the legal age of drinking in the United States at 21 years of age, additional taxes on the purchase of beer, and even for lowering the per se BAC limit again to a figure less than the current and accepted limit of 0.08. Without question MADD has been a significant player on the DUI stage, although not without controversy and criticism.
In 1986 the American Medical Association (AMA), who four decades earlier supported per se BAC levels of 0.15%, publicly supported a per se BAC level in the United States of 0.05%.
The "Drunk Driving Prevention Act of 1988" was then introduced in 1988 and authorized the Secretary of Transportation, over a period of three fiscal years, to award certain monetary grants to individual states "to improve the effectiveness of the enforcement of laws to prevent drunk driving". 23 USC 410 Under this act if a state adopted an enforcement program, it received a grant equal to 75% of the cost of implementation and enforcement for the first fiscal year, followed by 50% for the second fiscal year and 25% for the third fiscal year. To be eligible for the federal grant, certain conditions were required including, "an expedited driver's license suspension or revocation system" and "a self sustaining drunk driving prevention program".
For information on your Washington State DUI please contact our Snohomish County DUI attorneys, Whatcom County DUI attorneys, King County DUI attorneys, Whatcom Island County DUI attorneys, Island County DUI attorneys, or Skagit County DUI attorneys at 425-493-1115 or check out our website at http://www.washdui.com
No comments:
Post a Comment