State Supremes Rule on Drunk Driving Tests

The silver Honda slid out of the right lane and into the middle without the benefit of left turn signal. It continued to accelerate past the 65 mph speed limit and after about a mile, it swerved back to the right lane, nearly clipping the left front bumper of a dark blue Hyundai Elantra. HONK! What was going on with that driver, anyway?

Drivers began to be wary and to back off and “just let him go” as the Honda sped and swerved again and again for the next few miles. The piercing sound of the police siren was welcome to their ears when the state police vehicle dashed past the careful drivers who were more than happy to get out of the way. At last the Honda stopped. Whew!

Before long, the State trooper was at the window asking for information, and telling the man to get out of the car to take a sobriety test. He refused. Why should he give them more information with which to charge him? Besides, he didn’t think he’d been driving all that badly, anyway. He hadn’t hit anybody. And didn’t he have some kind of amendment right or something so he wouldn’t incriminate himself?

No, he cannot really refuse the sobriety test.

News from Olympia, Washington told about a case that was tried on Thursday, April 14, 2011. State law here in Washington says that drunk driving suspects can refuse a voluntary blood-alcohol test – but they will have to give up their license for at least a year if they do. However, the man being tried had been examined anyway because the Seattle police had gotten a court order. He turned around and sued, saying that it was unfair of the police to force him to take the blood-alcohol test.

The result? The state Justices said that the state law leaves room for the police to get such a warrant and proceed with the test: it was a 7-2 decision. The two dissenters thought that the warrant should only apply to evidence that had already been collected, like blood samples.

Hmm. If we follow that sort of thinking (and there’s some hesitation in calling it logic,) then a warrant could never be used to help gather evidence; rather it would only be used for evidence already in hand. So, what would be the use of ever getting a search warrant then?

It seems that the Justices in our state made a good decision. The point here should be that the man was drunk. He was a threat to the community. And they removed him, and needed a test so that his punishment would stand up in court, because just watching him drive erratically wouldn’t be enough – they have to provide some sort of evidence.

If we are seriously trying to make inroads here with stopping the stupidity of drunk driving, then lawsuits like this one shouldn’t even make it that far through the system.