Continuing Legal Education2008 DUI Update

Patrick Mahaney

Montgomery, Alabama

Today’s Outline

• Alabama DUI Law- Past, Present…and Future?

• The DUI Offender – A Statistical Report

• Alabama’s DUI Statute

• Review of recent cases affecting DUI practice

How Did Alabama Traffic Law Originate?• State’s first traffic laws enacted in 1911

• Act 535 of the 1911 Legislature was titled “The Motor Vehicle Law” -- effective October 1, 1911.

• Act 535 was intended to generate revenue and designed to require uniform license fees on automobiles

• The act also included, among other parts, a speed limit law*; a law for requiring operational brakes, horns and lights; and a law prohibiting driving while intoxicated.

* “No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this State recklessly, or a rate of speed that is reasonable and proper….. a rate of speed in excess of thirty miles per hour for a distance of a quarter mile shall be presumed evidence of traveling at a rate of speed which is not careful and prudent.”

DWI- 1911 thru 1979

• Act 535, Section 28, first line, stated: “Whoever operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

• The 1919 legislature, by Act 696, amended the 1911 statute to include the requirement for the trial court clerk to report to the State Tax Commission [the predecessor agency to the Department of Revenue] a conviction for violation of the DWI law so that the operator’s license would be suspended.

• The 1919 amendment also set the DWI penalty, as an unscheduled misdemeanor, of a fine “not exceeding twenty-five dollars for the first offense and not in excess of five hundred dollars for the subsequent offense.”

Alabama’s First “Rules of the Road”• The state’s traffic code was re-written in 1927 as part of a

comprehensive legislative act reorganizing the State Highway Department

• Among the duties set forth in the legislation was the requirement to enforce the state’s traffic laws and the authorization for the State Highway Department to commission selected individuals to enforce the “road laws.”

• Contained in Article II of Act 347 was the state’s first comprehensive “Rules of the Road.” The 1927 version of the “Rules of the Road” were subsequently incorporated into the 1928 revision of the Code of Alabama.

The 1927 DWI Statute• First Alabama driving while intoxicated statute was

enacted in 1911, and given a fine schedule and mandatory license suspension by the act of 1919.

• The 1927 Act which established Alabama’s first systematic “Rules of the Road” incorporated a DWI statute prohibiting driving “under the influence of intoxicating liquor…”

• By comparison to today’s DUI law, the 1927 statute was a model of simplicity:

“It shall be unlawful for any person whether licensed or not who is an habitual user of narcotic drugs or any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs to drive any vehicle upon any highway within this State;…”

The 1980 “Rules of the Road” DUI • One sentence constituted the entire DWI law for the state in 1927. The

wording of the state’s DWI statute remained generally unchanged until 1980.

• 1980: Alabama legislature writes new “Rules of the Road” and enacts Chapter 5A of Title 32. The current DUI statute- 32-5A-191- now exceeds four pages, single spaced, in length.

• 32-5A-191 (a): A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while:– (1) There is 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his or her

blood;– (2) Under the influence of alcohol;– (3) Under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree which

renders him or her incapable of safely driving;– (4) Under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled

substance to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving; or

– (5) Under the influence of any substance which impairs the mental or physical faculties of such person to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving. (A-5 enacted in 1983)

Two Major Changes • The first major change contained in the 1980 DUI statute

was the removal of the term “intoxication” as part of the nomenclature of the offense.

• Under the 1980 statute, a new term replaced “driving while intoxicated” with “driving under the influence.”

• The second major change that took effect with the enactment of the 1980 statute was, for the first time in this state, a per se violation of the DUI statute based strictly on the blood or breath test reading.

• No evidence of actual physical impairment or proof of intoxication is required to obtain and uphold a conviction

DUI becomes a ‘blood-alcohol’ offense• The per se violation constituted a major shift in the

prosecution of the DUI driver. • Testimony now centered on test admissibility rather than

the indications of physical impairment of the motorist. • Additionally, with two later pieces of legislation, the state’s

case was easier to prove than previously: – Act 660 of the 1988 legislature re-wrote the chemical

test for intoxication act, and included as part of the legislation the “2100 to 1 ratio” as a fundamental part of state law governing the administration of breath tests.

– In 1995, the legislature re-wrote the DUI statute lowering the per se violation from .10% to .08%, and incorporated the same changes into the chemical test act.

What Was the Result?• Since 1980 when the revised Rules of the Road took effect

with the enactment of Chapter 5A of the motor vehicle code, and following two and half decades since, an inter-related and complex series of events took place:– Emergence of a single-issue public interest group (M.A.D.D.) – The financial consequences of partial or complete loss of

federal highway funding if certain federal mandates were not achieved (90% Alabama road building is federally funded)

– Media interest in traffic enforcement issues (Birmingham News)– Media savvy politicians eyeing an easy target for favorable press

• Result: Alabama’s DUI statute has been amended 14 times since enactment in 1980, and along with supplemental legislation, has created of a complex, disjointed, and punitive traffic code, with serious and long-term consequences for citizens facing an alcohol and/or drug related driving offense.

Population Trend: State Population Up 15% in past 25 yearsSource: Auburn University at Montgomery

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

1980 1990 2000 2005

Population

Alabama Driver License Statistics: 60% More License Holders 1980-2005Source: Alabama Department of Public Safety

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Lic. Drivers

DUI Arrests As Compared to Population Trends and Licensed DriversAlabama DUI Trends – State population increases 15% over the past 25 years, but DUI arrests decline by 46%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

DUI Arrests

Convictions

DUI Arrests Statewide 2003-2006

17,700

17,800

17,900

18,000

18,100

18,200

18,300

18,400

18,500

18,600

18,700

18,800

2003 2004 2005 2006

2006 DUI Arrest Data

Total: 18,596 DUI Arrests state-wide

Convictions: 13,647 (78.4%)

Dismissed/Nol Prossed: 4,133

Acquitted/Not Guilty: 728 (4%)

Reduced to Reckless Driving: 54

Other: 34

Alabama’s DUI Offenders

A Statistical Study Based on Draeger Breath Test Data7/15/2003 – 10/21/2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.01-0.079 0.08-0.149 0.150-0.199 0.200-0.299 0.3 and Above

Percent of total Test As a Function of BrAC forMales and Females

Male % of TotalFemale % of Total

Pe

rce

nt

BrAC

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.01-0.079 0.08-0.149 0.150-0.199 0.200-0.299 0.3 and Above

Percentage of Test Results as a Function of BrAC For Males and Females For completed Tests

Male % of CompletedFemale % of Completed

Pe

rce

nt

BrAC

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 0.01-0.079 0.08-0.149 0.150-0.199 0.200-0.299 0.3 and Above

Percentage of Test Results as a Function of BrAC For Males and Females For completed Tests

Male % of CompletedFemale % of Completed

Pe

rce

nt

BrAC

Alabama Breath Test Data 7/15/2003 – 10/21/2007

• 51 month analysis of all Draeger tests in Alabama

• 101,668 tests – 66,904 completed tests (65.8%)– 56,226 male (84% male)– 10,676 female (16% female)– 34,764 refusal/incomplete (29.8%)– 4.4% incomplete other reasons

• 32% all test takers aged 21-30• Average BrAC all tests- .137%• Per cent tests above .15% - 41% all tests

So Who Is the Statistical Offender?

• Male, aged 21-30• Breath test at or near 15%

Federal statutes requiring state compliance or order the Secretary of Transportation to withhold federal highway funds from non-compliant states:

•23 U.S.C. 153, PL 102-240 “Use of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets”

•23 U.S.C. 154, PL 102-240 “Open Container Requirements”

•23 U.S.C. 157, PL 102-240 “Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seatbelts”

•23 U.S.C. 158, PL 105-178 “National Minimum Drinking Age”

•23 U.S.C. 159, PL 102-388 “Revocation or Suspension of Driver’s Licenses of Individuals Convicted of Drug Offenses”

•23 U.S.C. 163, PL 105-178 “Safety Incentives to Prevent Operation of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Persons”

•23 U.S.C. 164, PL 105-178 “Minimum Penalties for Repeat Offenders for Driving While Intoxicated or Driving Under the Influence”

Federal Mandates

The MADD Agenda - In Effect in Alabama

• .08 Per Se Comments: 32-5A-191(a)(1)

• Administrative License Revocation Comments: 32-5A-300, 304, 305

• Child Endangerment Comments: Minimum sentence doubled; Ala. Code 32-5A-191(n)

• Dram Shop Comments: Ala Code 6-5-71

• Fake ID Ala. Code 13A-10-14 and 28-3A-25(22)

• Felony DUI Comments: 4th and subsequent offence (within 5 years)

• Graduated Drivers Licensing Ala. Code 32-6-7.2

• Keg Registration Comments: Passed 2004.

• Mandatory Alcohol Assessment/Treatment Comments: On first offense required

• Mandatory Alcohol Education Comments: On first conviction required Ala. Code 32-5A-191(i)

• Mandatory BAC Testing for Drivers involved in fatal or serious injury collisions Ala. Code 32-5A-200

• Mandatory Jail 2nd Offense Ala. Code 32-5A-191 (f)

• Open Container Law that is Federally Compliant Ala. Code 32-5A-330

• Happy Hour Laws Comments: Regulation 20-X-6-.14

The MADD Agenda - In Effect in Alabama• Primary Belt Law

Ala. Code 32-5B-1• Repeat Offender Law that is Federally Co

mpliant Comment: Except ignition interlock

• Selling/Furnishing Alcohol to Youth Ala. Code 28-3A-25 (a)(3)

• Sobriety Checkpoints Comment: By case law decision

• Social Host Comments: Limited to intoxicated underage people.

• Vehicle Sanctions While Suspended Ala. Code 32-6-19(b)

• Vehicular Homicide Comments: Two types: Homicide by vehicle - felony - 32-5A-192; criminally negligent homicide while DWI - class C felony 13A-6-4(a) and (c)

• Victim Rights Constitutional Amendment

• Youth Attempt at Purchase Ala. Code 28-3A-25 (a)(19)

• Youth Consumption of Alcohol Ala. Code 28-3A-25(a)(19)

• Youth Possession of Alcohol Ala. Code 28-3A-25(a)(19)

• Youth Purchase Comments: Exceptions: For law enforcement purposes only; 28-1-5 and 28-3A-25(a)(19)

• Zero Tolerance Under 21 Comments:.02 BAC; 32-5-191(b)

…And Coming Soon To Alabama (MADD Agenda Not Yet in Effect)

• Anti-Plea Bargaining

• Habitual Traffic Offender

• High BAC

• Hospital BAC Reporting

• Ignition Interlock

• Lower BAC for Repeat Offender

• Mandatory BAC Testing for Drivers who are Killed

• Mandatory Server Training

• Penalties for Test Refusal Greater than Test Failure

• Plate Sanctions

• Preliminary Breath Tester

• Vehicle Confiscation

• Vehicle Impoundment

MADD’s Definition of “High-Risk” DriverThe MADD Impaired Driving Summit found that a major focus should be the "higher-risk driver" who is defined as:

1) convicted of a repeat offense for driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI), or

2) convicted of DWI/DUI with a blood-alcohol concentration of .15 percent or higher, or

3) convicted of a driving-while-suspended offense where the suspension was the result of a conviction for driving under the influence.

What Will Happen to the High-Risk Driver? • Driver's license suspension for not less than one year, including a complete

ban on driving for not less than 90 days; and for the remainder of the license suspension period and prior to the issuance of a probational hardship or work permit license the offender must install a certified alcohol ignition interlock device on his/her vehicle      

      • Impoundment or immobilization of the motor vehicle for not less than 90

days; and for the remainder of the license suspension period the offender must install a certified alcohol ignition interlock device on his/her vehicle   

         • Alcohol assessment and appropriate treatment; if diagnosed with a substance

abuse problem            • Imprisonment for not less than 10 days, an electronic monitoring device for

not less than 100 days, or be assigned to a DWI/DUI special facility for 30 days            • Fined a minimum of $1000, with the proceeds to be used for state or local

jurisdiction for impaired driving prevention and/or enforcement            • If the arrest resulted from a crash, requires restitution to victims of the

crash            • Requirement to attend a victim impact panel if panel is available in the area

Hankins Decision and Related Hankins Decisions

• Hankins v. State, __So. 2d__, 2007 WL 2811970 (Ala. Cr. App. Sept. 28, 2007): Using the rules of statutory construction, and the rule of lenity, the legislature’s adoption in 2006 of sub-section ‘O’ to 32-5A-191 requires strict application of the five year “look-back” provision for prior DUI convictions for purpose of sentencing.

• Hankins has no retroactive effect: Stewart v. State, __So. 2d __ 2008 WL 274598 Ala. Cr. App. Feb. 1, 2008): The law in effect at the time of the offense is controlling [i.e.- no application of the five year look back provision if the DUI offense occurred prior to April 28, 2006]

• Circuit Court retains jurisdiction if remanded, and not the District Court: Marshall v. State, __So. 2d. __ 2008 WL 902905 (Ala. Cr. App. Apr. 4, 2008): If the felony DUI is nullified by the Hankins decision, the case remains under the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and not the district court.

Recent Cases of Interest -Traffic

• Muldoon v. State, 959 So. 2d 698 (Ala. Cr. App. 2006): In misdemeanor traffic cases, the Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint (U.T.T.C.) is the formal charging instrument, analogous to an indictment and conferring original subject-matter jurisdiction in the district or municipal court, and in the circuit court in case of a de novo appeal. Where a U.T.T.C. has been issued without probable cause, the remedy is suppression of any evidence obtained as a result of an illegal detention – not the dismissal of the charge against the accused.

• Vehicle stop- suspected DUI- anonymous informant: Cottrell v. State, __ So. 2d __, 2006 WL 3734719 (Ala. Cr. App. Dec. 20, 2006): In a case of first impression for an Alabama appellate court, the Court of Criminal Appeals held: “We …hold that an anonymous tip concerning a potential drunk driver may be sufficiently reliable to justify a Terry stop without independent corroboration by the police.”

Recent Cases- Search and Seizure/Automobiles

• Ex parte Aaron, 913 So. 2d 1110 (Ala. 2005): [vehicle stop-anonymous tip] and Ex parte Shafer, 894 So. 2d 781 (Ala. 2004): [vehicle stop – anonymous tip]

• Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2005): a dog sniff of the exterior of a lawfully stopped vehicle during a traffic stop does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.

• Thornton v. U.S., 541 U.S. 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127 (2004):Extending the ruling in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed. 2d 768 (1981), the Court held in Belton that police may search the passenger compartment where the occupants were sitting as incident to arrest; in Thornton that ruling was extended to “recent occupants.”

Recent Cases- Search and Seizure- Traffic Stops

• Urioso v. State, 910 So. 2d 158 (Ala. Cr. App. 2005) -- Consent to search ostensibly given by non-English speaking motorist; denial of suppression motion by trial court reversed.

• Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. __ (June 18, 2007): When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the passengers and the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A person seized by police action is entitled to challenge the seizure, even if not the operator of the vehicle. In Maryland v. Wilson, the Court held that during a lawful traffic stop, the police may order a passenger out of the car, as a precautionary measure.

By the same measure, a passenger is seized by police authority and has standing to challenge the lawfulness of the vehicle stop. Where, as in this case, the automobile was stopped without reason to believe it was being operated unlawfully, the subsequent seizure of Brendlin was unlawful.

Recent Cases- Search and Seizure- Blood Tests

• Brown v. State, __So. 2d __, 2007 WL 1865383 (Ala. Cr.App. June 29, 2007) [Non-DUI case]. In a case of first impression in this state, the Court ruled there is no right to have counsel present at the taking of a blood sample pursuant to a court order.

• Independent blood tests, but only if you ask for one… Ex parte Yelverton (In re Yelverton v. City of Dothan), 929 So. 2d 438 (Ala. 2005)

Right to Counsel

• Scott v. State, 939 So. 2d 950 (Ala. Cr. App. 2005): Expanding on the principles established in Alabama v. Shelton, the Court held that where the state provides no counsel to an indigent defendant, the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in light of Argersinger and later cases, does not permit the state to activate a suspended sentence based upon the defendant’s violation of the terms of the sentence.

Roadblocks/Lawfulness under the 4th Amendment

• Ex parte Jackson, 886 So. 2d 155 (Ala. 2004) -- [Adopting the Cains standard to determine the Constitutionality of police roadblocks]:

The Court found that roadblocks, conducted under supervised conditions and using established standards of enforcement, met the Constitutional test required in weighing the balancing of the interests in the public’s safety and the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

Driver License Cases• Finch v. State, 903 So. 2d 166 (Ala. Cr. App. 2004) – Mandatory

Revocation; Method of Appeal

• Huggins v. Alabama Department of Public Safety, 891 So. 2d 337 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004)—Determination of Suspension; Review

• Cooley v. State Department of Public Safety, 827 So. 2d 124 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) --[Out of state violation; application to Alabama Class D and CDL]

• Cole v. Riley, __ So. 2d __, 2007 WL 3051051 (Ala. Oct. 19, 2007): Department of Public Safety’s policy of offering written driver license examinations in languages other the English does not to violate the Alabama Constitution’s Amendment 509 (English as the “official language” of the State of Alabama)

Concluding Thoughts

• DUI practice is complex, hyper-technical, involves over-lapping issues of driver license law, and requires no intent (no mens rea element)

• Successful defense of DUI cases requires knowledge of law, facts of the case, and understanding the science of alcohol testing in the human body.

• Defense of DUI cases requires detailed knowledge of 4th Amendment law, rules of criminal procedure, state statutory law, and administrative regulations of state agencies