[ back ]
If You Don’t Look or Act Drunk, Can You Still be Processed for D
If You Don’t Look or Act Drunk, Can You Still be Processed for Driving Under the Influence?
Epeli Mara’s cracked tail light led to a stop by a State Trooper. The officer observed no erratic driving, no speeding and no traffic violations. In stopping Mara, the trooper had no reason to suspect drunken driving. Mara responded to the trooper’s questions with normal speech. However the trooper noticed bloodshot and watery eyes, and smelled alcohol. Mara also said he’d had two beers 6 hours ago. The trooper asked him to leave the car and take the “walk and turn test” and the “one leg stand test.” Mara passed both tests.
Fourteen minutes after the initial stop, the trooper asked Mara to take a roadside preliminary breath test (PBT) to determine if he should be processed for DWI. The result was .102. The legal limit is .08. An evidentiary test at the barracks a half hour later showed blood alcohol of .107.
Mara moved to suppress both the tests claiming the trooper had no reason to administer the PBT which in turn led to the later test. He argued, his speech was normal, he passed the field tests, and there was no erratic driving. The trial court agreed, saying there was enough suspicion to order Mara out of his car and to take the roadside tests, but since he did not appear under the influence after that, the trooper had no reason to order him to take the PBT or the barracks test. The state appealed.
The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted the State’s policy to remove drunk drivers from the road. Cars in the hands of drunk drivers it said are “not at all unlike a bomb, and a mobile one at that, and are an instrument of death threatening the safety of the public.” Experienced drinkers may manage to sound O.K. and perform tests, but they are still a danger. The Court must balance the citizen’s right to be free from interference against the minimal time it took to give a PBT. A fourteen minute delay in determining whether to take the PBT was a reasonable intrusion in light to the possible harm to the public. The officer was entitled to consider all the circumstances when making a processing decision. The trooper did not need to accept the two beer story and could consider the odor of alcohol; the blood shot eyes, and ability of experienced drinkers to perform, in deciding whether to process Mara.
The case is another in a long line of cases from the Supreme Court upholding DWI cases. State v. Mara 2009 VT 96A
| Comments (1) |
On November 19, 2009 Dennis said:
The reality is that most any evening,the driving public, by 7 to 8 pm have been out having dinner, wine etc. Should law enforcement decide to really crack down, no one would make it home from dinner. Probable cause to stop a vehicle, and if it is your vehicle, puts you in a vulnerable position. It's a little like smoking - we are headed to an alchol free situation. Drink at home, don't drive. Never thought I would agree with this thought. But, if you are at home drinking, eating, etc, at least for the moment, you won't get arrested, nor will you be in an accident and you won't won't be hurt by another drinking driver. At home dinners with sleep overs will become the norm at some future point. Until then, drinking and driving is like Vegas - will I get stopped, or will I pass go (monopoly) and make it home. |
| |
[ back ]
