It's prom and graduation season. And historically, that is a time when authorities are especially on the lookout for underage drinking.
Virginia is no different in this regard than the rest of the nation. Young people like to get together. And the reality is that sometimes alcohol is involved.
In a recent Virginia underage drinking case, Arlington County police brought charges against 43 teenagers. All 43 youth were charged with underage possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages.
It is no surprise that many first-time drunk driving offenders honestly did not believe they were too intoxicated to drive. In many cases, residents in Virginia faced with DUI charges recount only having a few drinks before they drove. Sometimes drivers have even registered a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher the morning after a night of drinking.
These situations illustrate that it really doesn't take a lot of alcohol to reach the blood alcohol threshold, so what would happen if the national threshold was lowered?
Traffic violations are usually punished by fines. In Virginia and every other state, traffic tickets typically carry a monetary fine amount that varies according to the severity of the alleged violation.
Criminal cases can include fines as well. But how well do courts do at collecting fines?
A recent state audit sheds light on this question. The audit looked at fines and levies issued by courts for Virginia traffic violations, as well as criminal cases.
How severe are the penalties when someone is convicted of causing the death of another person in an alcohol-related crash? Each state has its own range of penalties, of course, and its own sentencing system. So the question is perhaps best answered by focusing on a particular state.
An example of how Virginia authorities respond to fatal DUI cases came this week. A 52-year-old woman who struck and killed a pedestrian while driving under the influence of alcohol in 2012 was convicted on a manslaughter charge. She was also convicted of drunk driving.
"Candid Camera" was once a hugely popular television show. It featured concealed cameras that caught ordinary people in odd settings, some of which were contrived solely for the show. It was, in some ways, a precursor to "America's Funniest Home Videos."
Red-light cameras at today's intersections are in a sense based on an opposite premise fro "Candid Camera." Cameras that capture traffic violations such as speeding or running a red light at intersections are not hidden. They are there around-the-clock, churning out tickets automatically when the computer thinks a violation has occurred.
Earlier this year, Virginia legislators considered a bill that would have prohibited the use of red-light cameras. Such cameras have been controversial in many parts of the country. Critics contend that they are used mainly to generate fine revenue for local governments, not for any legitimate public safety purpose.
In cases of suspected drunk driving, police officers generally rely on breath tests, not blood tests, to determine blood-alcohol content (BAC). But if someone refuses to take a breath test, can officers force someone to take a blood test if they have not obtained a search warrant?
Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said that this question must be decided on the totality of the circumstances. But the Court found, in a case called Missouri v. McNeely, that police committed an unreasonable search by forcing a DUI suspect to give a blood sample when the police failed to get a warrant. The case has implications for Virginia and other states in cases of breath or blood test refusal.
When police suspect drunk driving, they usually use breath tests rather than blood tests or urine tests. To a great extent, this is for reasons of convenience. Having someone exhale into a device is less intrusive than sticking a needle in their arm to extract blood.
But when someone refuses a breath test, are law enforcement officers allowed to require someone to take a blood test without getting a warrant first?
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court said that in such cases police cannot always rely on the "exigent circumstances" exception to the normal search warrant requirement. It is still unclear, however, how the Court's ruling will affect Virginia DUI cases.
Almost anyone can have one too many drinks in a social setting and then get behind the wheel of a car. After all, alcoholic beverages are an important part of the social experience for many people. And in a mobile society that depends on cars for people to get around, there may not be many ways other than driving for people to get home after being out socializing with friends.
To be sure, there are people who have problems with alcohol and rack up repeat drunk driving charges. But in the Newport News area and across the country, there are also many first-time offenders who may face DWI charges just because they had one too many beers or glass of wine on a social occasion.
A charge isn't a conviction. To be sure, it can be difficult to remember that at the time you are subjected to a traffic stop. After all, it's daunting to see those flashing lights come on and see a police officer walking up to your car.
Try your best, however, to keep these few simple words in mind: a charge isn't a conviction. For example, just because police say someone was "drifting" in a lane doesn't mean necessarily mean they have enough evidence to prove a drunk driving charge.
A recent Virginia case is an example of this. A 61-year-old wan was pulled over on the interstate by a state trooper. The trooper said the man was driving too slowly, as well as weaving.
Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion in deciding whether to bring criminal charges. This is true off all types of charges. Before a judge even gets involved, prosecutors must decide whether to bring the case at all.
Drunk driving charges in Virginia and across the country therefore depend, to a considerable agree, on the decisions make by prosecutors. Sometimes, even if the technical letter of the law seems to indicate a DWI or DUI charge would be possible, there are good reasons not to bring charges.
Bold labels are required.
John J. Rice
707 Mobjack Place
Newport News,
VA
23606
