CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF CONVICTED DWI (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED) OFFENDERS SELECTED TO RECEIVE SPECIAL SANCTIONS - ALCOHOL COUNTERMEASURES LITERATURE REVIEW FINAL REPORT

• NCJ Number: 18335
• Author(s): J W LITTLE; G YOUNG; S SELK
• Date Published: 1974
• Length: 34 pages
• Contract Number(s): DOT-HS-371-3-786
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin
• Corporate Author: US Dept of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin; National Safety Council
• Sale Source: National Technical Information Service; National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

USING A HYPOTHETICAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM AS A MODEL, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RAMIFICATIONS OF DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE SANCTIONS TO TRADITIONAL CRIMINAL PENALTIES IMPOSED ON SELECTED DWI OFFENDERS ARE ANALYZED.

Abstract

A MAJOR PORTION OF THIS ANALYSIS CONSISTS OF A STUDY ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SPECIAL ALTERNATIVE SANCTIONS PROGRAM AFTER A CONVICTION FOR AN ALCOHOLINVOLVED TRAFFIC OFFENSE. THIS REPORT FOCUSES ON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS THAT ARISE REGARDING THE POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF GUARANTEES SUCH AS DUE PROCESS OF LAW, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, RIGHT OF PRIVACY, PROPER JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS IN IMPOSING ALTERNATIVE SANCTIONS AND THE POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY RANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO REHABILITATION PROGRAMS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PROBLEM DRINKING DRIVERS (PDD) NEED ONLY PROVIDE A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN ORDER TO MEET FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RANDOM ASSIGNMENTS TO EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMS IS ALSO REVIEWED. ALTHOUGH A SENTENCE RANDOMLY IMPOSED IS A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION, THE RESEARCHERS INDICATE THAT SUCH PROGRAMS ARE LEGALLY VALID PROVIDED THAT IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE COMPELLING STATES' INTEREST OUTWEIGHS THE NECESSARY INFRINGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED. IT IS ALSO DETERMINED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF DRUG THERAPY AND BLOOD TESTS DO NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND PROTECTIONS AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, PROVIDED THAT THE PDD VOLUNTARILY SUBMITS TO THE DRUG PROGRAM AND THE NECESSARY TESTS. INVOLUNTARY CIVIL COMMITMENTS OF PDD'S IS ALSO FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL IF BASED ON STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. THE CRITICAL QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IN THIS REPORT IS WHETHER THE STATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PROGRAMS THAT COULD ABRIDGE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF PERSONS SUBJECTED TO THEM. THE RESEARCHERS CONCLUDE THAT CAREFULLY DRAFTED ENABLING LEGISLATION, MEETING MINIMAL FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS, ARE NECESSARY IN ALL INSTANCES TO PROMOTE THE VALIDATION OF SUCH PROGRAMS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)