Oklahoma Supreme Court Blocks New Drunk Driving Law

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has blocked the Impaired Driving Elimination Act. This law would create a new program for first time DUI offenders and gets rid of the appeal process for people trying to keep their licenses after being arrested for DUI. It was approved by the Legislature earlier this year, and was supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. However, there was a lawsuit filed in June by four attorneys who allege that the law is unconstitutional because it denies a person the right to due process. 

One of the authors of the bill, Representative Scott Biggs, wrote a statement about the lawsuit. He says that the attorneys were seeking to expose the public to harm by letting intoxicated drivers loose. so the attorneys could represent more clients when they get drunk and re-offend. He also mentions that the bill is supposed to address the DUI epidemic in Oklahoma. by creating a diversion program for low level, non-violent offenders. It requires intoxalizers on vehicles, treatment program and offers rewards such as a driver's license back with no fees for reinstatement for those who complete the program. For those who do not complete the program, they receive the exact same consequences as Driving without insurance or Driving while license is suspended. If you are found guilty, and have not addressed the problem, your license is suspended. 

Comments from Allen:

This is an interesting approach to the DUI problem.  I represent a lot of people who are arrested for DUI.  The main concern of all of them is the loss of their licence.  A first-time offender in Idaho loses his license for 30 days, and thereafter may get a work permit  to drive for a period of up to six months before getting his license back.  A second DUI results in a one year suspension with not ability to drive to and from work, unlsess you are enrolled in a drug court program.

The new Oklahoma bill increases the suspension period for first-time DUI offenders from six months to one year, and doubles the penalty of second-time offenders from one year to two years, and changes other penalties and provides for ignition-interlock systems installed in the cars of offenders.

I believe the problem defense attorneys have with this bill is that the new law requires people who want to participate in the diversion program to request the special treatment before they have had time to hire an attorney and have the attorney review the police record of the reasons for the arrest and evidence surrounding the arrest for DUI.  The new law says that participants must request participation in that program within 15 calendar days of the arrest.

Idaho's court system moves things along pretty rapidly.  A DUI defendant is usually arraigned within seven days of arrest, and has a pretrial conference set up about 4-6 weeks later, after he has had an opportunity to hire an attorney, and the attorney has had time to request and obtain records concerning the arrest.  This allows a defendant time to have his attorney review the records and determine whether there was a basis for the DUI arrest in the first instance.  The Oklahoma law requries the defendant to make a decision to be found guilty before any of that has happened.  The proponents of the new law say that it does not affect the defendant's rights because he does not have to participate in the program, he still has the right to proceed as he did before, albeit with new penalties double what they were before.

This legislature does not like attorneys, and does not want those accused of driving while intoxicated to be advised by attorneys, that is plain.  To justify this law on the basis that it saves defendants money on attorney fees is insulting and is a blatant attempt to run DUI defendants through the legal system without giving them time to run this outcome past their attorneys.

If the legislature is serious about being merciful to first-time offenders, it would remove the language limiting the amount of time defendants have to participate in the program.  
I have never seen a program set up to intentionally bypass legal counsel.  That aply describes Oklamoma 2017 SB643, and it should be enjoined until modified to remove the time limit for participating in the program.

***********************************************************************************************************************

Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen handles cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.

Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.

Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents,truck accidents, auto accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.

Allen Browning is an Idaho Falls attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI), traffic violations, Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, battery and assault charges, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.
Allen is able to provide his services if the incident occurs in the following Idaho Areas: American Falls, Arco, Blackfoot, Boise, Burley, Driggs, Idaho Falls, Malad City, Pocatello, Rexburg, Rigby, Salmon, St. Anthony, Twin Falls, Bannock County, Bingham County, Bonneville County, Butte County, Cassia County, Clark County, Fremont County, Jefferson County, Lemhi County, Madison County, Oneida County, Power County, Teton County, and Twin Falls County.   
Sources for more information:
http://kfor.com/2017/10/30/oklahoma-supreme-court-blocks-new-drunken-driving-law/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

7 Things Lawyers Can't Tell Jurors

Image
 It is a trial lawyer's job to educate jurors, and tell them what they need to know in order to decide cases. Despite this, there are many things, true things, that lawyers are not allowed to tell jurors directly in statements to the jury or indirectly through testimony of their witnesses. Lawyers know these things, though, and I thought you might like to know some of things. #1. A lawyer can't tell the jurors anything that happened during settlement negotiations. He cannot let the jurors know, when asking them to make the defendant pay his client $100,000 that the defendant agreed to pay him $80,000 prior to the trial. The reason for this is that you want settlement negotiations to be very open. You don't want to damage a negotiation session because someone is afraid that what they say will get repeated to a jury if you don't strike a deal. #2 In Idaho, a lawyer can't tell the jurors that the defendant has insurance. In many other states, he can. Bec...
Read more

OBAMA APPOINTEE DENIES GIULIANI ABILITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF, RESULTS IN $148 MILLION JUDGMENT

Image
In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 protests, Rudy Giuliani has been ordered to pay over $148 million in damages to two Georgia election workers named by the former New York mayor.  What has not been explained to the general public is that there was never any trial concerning whether Mr. Giuliani had actually slandered or libeled these two persons.   In the case of Giuliani, the two Georgia election workers listed as plaintiffs in the suit against Giuliani sued him for saying they engaged in what amounted to election fraud.  They are allowed to ask the defendant ex-mayor for documents relevant to their suit and to his defense. These women brought their case against Giuliani in a jurisdiction that is heavily populated with Democrats.  They could have sued in their home state, Georgia, but did not. They wanted a jury pool of anti-Trump democrats, so they sued in Washington, D.C. They managed to get an incredibly biased Barack Obama-appointed, anti-Trump judge....
Read more

Man Framed by Prosecutor Released After 29 Years in Prison Seeking Lawsuit

Image
19 year old, Charise Kamps, was found raped and strangled to death in her apartment in June 1980. Ralph Armstrong told the police that both of them were at the apartment alone doing cocaine before leaving to go see friends around 9:30 pm. Police said that they learned that Armstrong owed Kamp's boyfriend $400 and witnesses saw Armstrong handing Kamps money that night. However, the money was not found in the apartment, and Armstrong deposited $315 in his bank the next day.The defense argued that he got the money from his brother. One of the neighbors saw a lean, muscular man about 5 feet 5 inches tall with long, dark hair drive up to the apartment. Before the identification process, the police had the witness hypnotized. He was shown a photograph of Armstrong, and After being hypnotized, the witness changed the height of the man he saw. Later at a lineup to have the witness select the man he saw, he chose Armstrong. The other people in the lineup were police officers in wigs...
Read more