Now
A Few Clouds
32°
High
32°
Low
21°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

High court upholds DUI law

Comments 8 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By NATE JENKINS / The Associated Press

Thursday, Jul 03, 2008 - 12:18:38 pm CDT

Drunken drivers can continue to be punished by both the courts and the state Department of Motor Vehicles following a ruling by the state Supreme Court on Thursday.

Four men who lost their commercial drivers’ licenses after being charged with drunken driving in their personal cars in 2006 argued they shouldn’t face criminal prosecution because they already had their licenses revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Criminal prosecution in the courts, they said, would violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which protects people from a second prosecution for the same offense.

Story Photo

The attorney for the men, Arthur Langvardt, did not immediately respond to a message left Thursday morning.

The men had their commercial drivers’ licenses suspended for a year because of a law that allows the DMV take away licenses of drivers arrested for DUI even when they were in their personal vehicles at the time of the alleged offense.

Under that law, the state Department of Motor Vehicles imposes an automatic 90-day license suspension on drivers who are arrested for DUI. A one-year suspension is given to drivers who refuse to take a blood-alcohol test.

In addition, the law allows for suspension of commercial driver’s licenses for one year to life.

Drivers who want to appeal their suspensions can request a department hearing, at which they must show evidence that they did not break the law.

The state argued that the state Legislature intended for administrative license revocations by the DMV to be a civil penalty, not a criminal one, therefore not violating the double-jeopardy law.

The state Supreme Court agreed.

“The Legislature’s explicit intent is to reduce or prevent commercial motor vehicle accidents, fatalities and injuries,” Judge John Wright wrote in the opinion for the court. “The stated purpose indicates that it intended a civil sanction,” and not a criminal one.

The high court’s ruling overturns the decision of the Adams County District Court. It had ruled that the Legislature intended the procedure for administrative license revocations to be criminal and that the men were convicted as a result of that process.

Criminal prosecution of the four men has been on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Justice wrote on July 3, 2008 12:36 pm:
" I've never been a fan of the criminal/civil penalty for DUIs. It should stay in the realm of the criminal court alone. If a person's DUI conviction reduces the number of points on that individual's driving record, then the DMV should be able to suspend, however, a criminal court judge, or the legislature, should determine the appropriate sentence whether it be jail time, license suspension, or both for the criminal offense. "

 r downs wrote on July 3, 2008 12:57 pm:
" So DWI is not a criminal offense? When their's no way it isn't! Just shows what the govenment will "say"
to keep things status que. This is really absurd! Glad I don't drink. "

 LENIN wrote on July 3, 2008 1:58 pm:
" PATHETIC...When the criminal and civil sanctions are the same, you can't call them different things just because another government entity is involved. And if it is a civil matter, that too should be done in court AFTER the criminal matter is resolved. This is just another way the government is bowing to special interest groups to skirt constitutional rights. "

 Guess What wrote on July 3, 2008 2:38 pm:
" hey folks, i have an idea on how we could not ever talk about this issue. DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE! "

 WPM wrote on July 3, 2008 5:27 pm:
" Last I knew a driver's license was a privilege and not a right. The DMV who oversees this privilege has deemed that is the punishment for D.W.I. Criminal charges are different.
Be smart this weekend, Law enforcement will be in full force! "

 MOTORIST wrote on July 3, 2008 8:43 pm:
" The court decision said that it is okay to take the commercial driver licenses away from truck drivers who have been arrested for drunk driving. Sounds okay to me. They dont belong behind the wheel of an 80,000 pound truck. Most truck drivers are hard working professionals and who know that drinking and driving don't mix with keeping a professional driver license. Just because drunk drivers lose the privilege to drive a commercial truck doesn't mean they should not also face criminal charges for drunk driving. Ya think that doctors or lawyers who commit serious crimes shouldn't lose their work license because they might be punished for the crime in court? "

 CS wrote on July 3, 2008 11:20 pm:
" Doctors and Lawyers get charged all the time with drug use and DUI and worse, and don't lose their licenses and livlihood-that is not a valid comparison. "

 bill wrote on July 4, 2008 11:32 pm:
" I see DUI as a bad thing but ruining a man's livlihood just might be a bit of harsh. Obviously all the people that replied ahead of me are the salt of the earth, never took a drink in their life`and the only time they drove their vehicle was to Sunday church services. "

Ads by Yahoo!