Citizen Tip continued...
The officer followed Mr. Harris and watched as the motorist slowed down before crossing an intersection where he had the right of way, and slowed down again 50 feet before reaching a red stop light. At other times the car was traveling at the stipulated speed limit of 25 mph.
Once through the intersection, Harris pulled his car over to the shoulder and stopped. Officer Picard pulled up behind Harris and activated his lights and siren.
The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol on Harris' breath and noticed that his speech was slurred. Picard administered a field sobriety test. Harris failed. He was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Harris had been convicted of the same offense twice before.
At trial, Harris' lawyer argued that the charge should be dropped because the police officer lacked the level of reasonable suspicion needed to justify the traffic stop. The trial court rejected the argument and Harris was convicted and sentenced to serve 90 days in prison. A state appeals court affirmed the decision.
The Virginia Supreme Court voted 4-3 to throw out the conviction. The state high court said the anonymous tip did not provide enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing to overcome Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The police officer must personally observe criminal activity before an investigative stop is justified, the Virginia court ruled.
The Virginia attorney general's office appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court, urging the high court to overturn the opinion and make clear that in cases involving suspected drunk drivers, police officers are justified in conducting a brief traffic stop.
The Supreme Court turned down the appeal without comment. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia.
Chief Justice Roberts said a sharp disagreement had emerged in federal and state courts over this particular Fourth Amendment issue. Most courts have upheld the police stop, but some have ruled for the motorist. "The conflict is clear and the stakes are high," he wrote.
"The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers 'one free swerve' before they can legally be pulled over by police," Roberts said.
"It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check." (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1021/p02s01-usju.html )
Down Under continued....
As part of the assessment, a medical expert and a psychological expert evaluate the offender’s previous alcohol consumption patterns as well as any attitudinal and behavioral changes related to it. If the medical-psychological assessment determines that behavioral change has occurred, the driver’s license may be reissued after completion of an educational course.
The current proposal being considered is to require a breath interlock device for all vehicles of offenders in the above categories so that those doing the medical-psychological evaluation had the benefit of breath test data from the interlock as evidence of individual drinking behavior. Their thinking is that the objective data could serve as a
diagnostic and key counseling tool in order to shape the therapeutic intervention and can provide useful feedback about the rehabilitation progress.
It should also be noted that the attempt alone to start a vehicle in an impaired condition is a separate offense sufficient for prosecution and the driving license will be withdrawn immediately in this case.
We have provided a link to an extensive research document discussing the present and future of breath interlock devices, compiled by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, containing all of the research presented at the International Interlock Symposium which includes research from Canada, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia, and the United States. (9th Annual Interlock Symposium)
Drink Driving in Australia
Notice first that the Australians use the term "drink driving" instead of impaired driving. This phrase reflects their zero-tolerance attitude indicating that the defendant need not be drunk and that any amount of drinking combined with driving may be too much.
The status of impaired driving prosecution in Australia reflects an interesting dichotomy. For instance, the societal toleration for the level of impairment is much less than here in the States. The current level for legal intoxication is .05, and there is a significant movement to reduce that to the .02 level currently in existence in Sweden. The fact that the legal level of impairment is so low is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that the first offense is fine only (up to $1000), but also carries significant license restrictions.
The system of license sanctions and restrictions in Australia is administered administratively outside of the court system through the administrative agency that issues drivers licenses. It does include a system of "hard" suspensions, provisional, and occupational licenses, and mandatory ignition interlocks.
What is interesting is that many of the judges and traffic safety officials involved in the system see the license suspensions and ignition interlock provisions as punitive in nature. That is, the suspensions and ignition interlocks, and educational classes, are mandatory for certain period of time (depending on the severity of the offense) but the defendant is not rewarded in any way for "good behavior." There is a significant movement, therefore, to amend these statutes to allow these officials to exercise their discretion and reward defendants who are able to demonstrate behavioral change by issuing less restrictive licenses, or shortening his suspension period. An example of the objective evidence of such a behavioral change which could indicate behavioral change would be an extended period of vehicle use without any ignition interlock failures.
It is also interesting to note that the judges in Australia who hear impaired driving cases are interested in the same types of education that we are. For instance, the seminar that I attended included sessions on Alcohol Toxicology, Interlock Research, Continuous Transdermal Alcohol Monitoring, an introduction to DWI Courts, and a session entitled Treatment of Drink Driving Offenders: What Is Needed?
To prove that I was actually there, I have attached the normal touristy stuff, pictures I took of kangaroos and koalas in the wild.