Newsletters

Overview of Private Motor Vehicle Traffic Regulation

The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution; it is a revocable privilege that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures. Whether the right to operate a motor vehicle it is termed a right or a privilege, one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power. Accordingly, state vehicle codes were promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of public roadways, and it is viewed as an enhancement rather than an infringement upon a citizen's right to travel. The privilege properly may be revoked for noncompliance, and revocation is not an unconstitutional infringement of the revokee's right to travel.

Necessity Defense to a DUI Charge

There are certain defenses that can be raised by a motorist charged with the offense of drunk driving, either driving while under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI). One such defense is the "necessity" defense. This defense, which is sometimes referred to as ''choice of evils,'' and ''competing harms'' defenses, is presented when the motorist admits that he or she drove while intoxicated, but did so under threatening circumstances. The necessity defense exculpates the motorist for conduct that would otherwise be a crime when the motorist engages in the conduct in order to prevent something worse from occurring.

Penalties for Traffic Device Control Violations

Most states maintain statutes directing motorists to obey traffic control devices, including green, yellow, and red signals or arrows, lane direction control signals, stop signs, and yield signs. In addition to directing drivers to obey the directions of traffic control devices, the governing statute will explain the appropriate driver responses to traffic control devices. For example, a statute may direct that a driver stop at a clearly marked stop line as the driver approaches a flashing red light used in a traffic control device or with a traffic sign. These statutes also direct driver responses in the event the traffic control signal is out of operation or functioning improperly.

Defendant's Right to Counsel Before Consenting to Chemical Test in Drunk Driving Case

Most people are aware that Miranda warnings must be given an accused before he or she is subjected to custodial interrogation. The warnings are intended to protect the privilege against self-incrimination, and the Fifth Amendment right to counsel was created to protect that privilege. However, if the privilege against self-incrimination is not implicated, the warnings are not required, and there is no right to counsel. The United States Supreme Court has held that "physical" evidence may be obtained from an accused without running afoul of the privilege. Therefore, the right to counsel privilege has been held inapplicable to physical or performance tests and chemical tests of bodily substances.

Rising Alcohol Defense in DUI/DWI Cases

Drunk driving statutes across the country are not always uniform in how they describe the degree of inebriation that is required for conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while intoxicated (DWI). However, they do generally provide that it is unlawful to have an excessive blood-alcohol concentration at the driving of driving – not at the time of being tested. The statutes in most states provide provisions for a per se illegal offense when a motorist's blood-alcohol level is at or above 0.08%.